So the big mystery that dominated talk in Singapore has been solved. In fact it was solved much earlier, with the arrest of the self styled 'Messiah' in KL on Nov 4th. Even so the Prime Minister, had us believe it was on-going when he addressed the press about the hacking incidents on November 6th.

The 'Messiah' being transported in a police van. Inset is believed to be what he looks like.

The 'Messiah' has been exposed as a 35 year old Singaporean, James Raj Arokiasamy, and he was duly charged in court on Tuesday:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/james-raj--35--charged-for-hacking-ang-mo-kio-town-council-website-034350228.html

As he claims to suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), he has been remanded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), to ascertain this and whether it played a part in his 'hacking activities'. It appears that he was actually a fugitive on the run, having absconded from urine reporting and a drug consumption charge. Incidentally he has only been charged with the hacking of the AMK Town Council site for the moment. However it seems certain that additional charges relating to the hacking of City Harvest and Straits Times blog pages, will also likely be preferred at some stage. He's due back in court on November 26th. Thus far it seems likely he'll be charged only with offences under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA) and to answer for the outstanding drug related charges.

James Raj will be held at the Psychiatric wing of the IMH, while doctors decide whether he was affected by ADHD.

So what's next for Mr Raj? Well it all depends on what the psychiatrists at IMH have to report on his condition. If it's proven he was suffering from ADHD at the time of the offences, that would be a strong mitigating factor and he might not face a long jail term for them. Anyway the hacking cases aside, I think he's looking at lengthy jail term for his drug offences. Under the law, if he's charged again for a second time for consuming drugs, he faces a minimum 3 year sentence. Coupled with the fact he's facing different charges for computer misuse, under the law he will be subject to consecutive jail terms. Of course, he has to be proven guilty of all the charges, but I suspect he's looking at a 5 year jail term thereabouts. 3 years for the consumption charge plus 12 months (I suspect) for 1 hacking charge. If the court decides to make 2 of those hacking charges count, he'll get somewhere close to 5 years (3+1+1).

Was Raj part of the Anonymous Group (logo above) or acting on his own? All these should become known with his trial.

Many of those who are of the PAP's ilk, have been quick to praise the Singapore Police Force (SPF) for tracking him down. Well that may be so, but it also proves that Mr Raj was not really a master cyber criminal as was made out to be by the New Paper (TNP). No master cyber criminal would leave a trail so easily detected. In fact the Anonymous Group that Mr Raj claimed to be a member of, has penetrated the systems of countries across the globe and many of them have evaded arrest. In fact the 1 sure thing about Mr Raj's arrest that cannot be denied is the role and our dependency on the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM). Some quarters in Singapore have been quick to dismiss the PDRM as inefficient and corrupt. The rise of violent crime in Malaysia is placed at their door.

The lion's share of praise of Raj's arrest should go to the PDRM if you ask me.

Yet as with the arrest of the Kovan Murders suspect, PDRM has shown that they can quickly mobilise and nab a suspect if the correct information is available. They are no slouches and play a crucial role in preventing and arresting cross-border criminal activity. But Malaysia is a large country and they can't be everywhere and prevent or solve every crime, but they will try. So kudos to PDRM for their role in helping with Singapore's own battle with crime.

And now back to the New Paper for its sensationalising of these spate of hacking allegedly done by Raj, as mentioned in my previous post: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/11/tnps-melvin-singh-is-idiot-but-messiah.html.

I find it shocking and somewhat abhorrent that a national newspaper under the auspices of the state controlled Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), would engage in mischievous and fallacious fear-mongering. Worse still was its Deputy Editor's exhortation for common folk to rise up based on that irresponsible article and make a stand. If this isn't some form of sedition, I don't know what is?! National newspapers should not engage in activities that could spread panic and fear amongst the general public. In this case, when they had very little knowledge or understanding of the scope of the hacking, they should not have created a misconception that the whole nation's infrastructure was under threat. They should not have linked worldwide online criminal activity like phishing and internet related crimes to this episode and create an illusion that our everyday life was under dire threat. They definitely should not have linked incidents in countries like the USA and Israel that themselves engage in cyber warfare, and linked the possibilities with Singapore.

Perhaps this headline best describes what will happen if you start believing everything TNP publishes!

Instead they should have called for calm and encouraged people to better protect themselves online, in line with what banks do. They should have refrained from making a call for support for the Govt, and let the Govt make that call for themselves. In no way should they have made out a case of a 'threat of war' uttered by a mere hacker, into a realistic doomsday scenario that could and would befall us. It was shocking, irresponsible and abhorrent. If TNP and its editorial staff have any decency, they should publish another article admitting to its mistake and promising to abstain from similar conduct. If they want to play to the PAP gallery, then declare it openly and perhaps change their name to 'The New PAP Paper', so it would leave ordinary readers in no doubt where their loyalties lie, rather than hide behind a mask and make outlandish claims of support on issues that don't exist.

Moving on from 'that trashy tabloid', it seems 15 people have been arrested for engaging in some sort of protest activity in relation to 'the Messiah's call' to mark Guy Fawkes Night on November 5th:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/15-singaporeans--assisting--police-over--million-mask-march--assembly-125952286.html

It seems 12 men wearing black and red were seen gathering at City Hall MRT. 3 of them were wearing the 'Guy Fawkes mask' and more were found in their possession. 2 other men and a woman were detained in Orchard Road wearing those masks. According to the police, this was despite an advisory that permits were required for public gatherings. That is indeed the law, but let's hope the Police and Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) use common sense and take a less serious view of these incidents. The wearing of a particular attire and masks should not be taken a violent act of aggression or incitement to violence. It was not a large scale event that caused grief or alarm to the public, in fact I can safely say that most Singaporeans would look at it as a form of amusement over and above anything else. Here is a chance to be magnanimous and rather than prosecution, a stern warning should suffice.

Former Opposition candidate Alex Tan donning a "Guy Fawkes mask" during a protest at Hong Lim Park. Nothing untoward befell him for wearing it, the same cannot be said for some Singaporeans who wore similar masks on November 5th in public.

In addition, the SPF has arrested 5 men for 'acts of vandalism' and another 5 relating to the 'hacking of the PM's and President's websites:

http://www.spf.gov.sg/mic/2013/11/20131112_arrest_hacker_CID.html

In regards to the first 5, they have been charged in court for vandalism which carries a mandatory imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane at least. All these relate to spray painting 'Anonymous' related words on public spaces. Obviously spray painting is an anti-social act, but charging them with vandalism which attracts the cane is a bit draconian. Hopefully the AGC will consider this to the 'Sam Lo incident' and reduce the charges to one of mischief.

The President's website search page was directed to this image with the words to signify 'a good for nothing person' in Hokkien.

As for the other 5, it seems they range from the ages of 17 to 45 years. They are believed to have been responsible for defacing the search page option on both the PM and President's websites and directing it to another. Interestingly the IDA which is responsible for maintaining the online status of Govt sites, described these acts not as 'hacking' but 'being compromised'. Although this would still be offences under the CMCA, I hope the AGC again looks at this more as a prank not a deliberate attempt to disrupt Govt activity. Both acts were done late at night when there's little traffic and were not of a 'sophisticated nature'. The sites were not disrupted outright and the search function was duly up and running shortly thereafter. Hopefully prosecution is done with a lighter touch especially with the youthful offender, and these acts of folly will not become a 'millstone' around their necks. Hopefully the prosecution will give them a chance to turn over a new leaf and allowed to become more useful citizens.

Hopefully these recent spate of hackings will make people ponder on the meaning of the above advice.

In closing, I hope this saga of 'the Messiah' and online hacking dies down and the Govt continues to ensure its IT infrastructure remains up to date and secure. In some ways, these 'hackings' have given them a valuable lesson and reminder to do so. Whatever it is, I hope that all the doomsday merchants like TNP and their ilk will refrain from creating outlandish scenarios and creating a false sense of alarm to the general public. Hopefully this episode will make people realise that they should not believe everything they read and take personal measures to find out the facts and ensure their online security.

I was somewhat surprised to see PAP MP for Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC, Hri Kumar Nair come out and attack the Worker's Party, in a Facebook post that obviously received the dutiful reprint in the Straits Times and other main stream media:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/uniquely-singapore-politics/620087204704547

Before I delve into his article, I did say 'surprise' - indeed I was surprised that Mr Nair chose to play the role of 'attack dog'. Obviously PAP MPs will be expected to lay into the main opposition in Parliament, but what surprised me that it was Mr Nair who suddenly felt the need to raise the ante all by himself. Why? Because he was one of the most inept MPs in his GRC, so much so that they (the PAP top brass) decided to basically remove him as the MP overseeing Thomson constituency and replace him with Ms Josephine Teo. He effectively exchanged roles with her and took over her place in Toa Payoh.

Leong Horn Kee served as MP for Thomson for over a decade before being replaced by Mr Nair.

Thomson had a long serving MP in Leong Horn Kee. A quiet MP, but he was popular on the ground within his ward, especially the poor living in Sin Ming Estate. He quit politics at GE 2006 and was replaced by Mr Nair, who came in by the back door in the uncontested GRC. In his first term as MP, he did not seem able to understand the needs of his residents and hung on to his job as MP narrowly as the Chiam See Tong led SPP team could only garner 43% of the vote in GE 2011. The word was this ward's score was among the lowest in the 5 seat GRC. This led to a switching of roles with Ms Josephine Teo who scored better in her Toa Payoh division, and had a much better rapport with the ground there than Mr Nair in the Shunfu and Sin Ming estates that formed a large chunk of his constituency.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair speaking Parliament. After 7 long years, he finally found his voice - and wants to play 'attack dog'.

So I'm surprised that Mr Nair has now after 7 years as an MP decided he would seize the initiative and lay into the WP for lacking an ideology. Surprisingly while he ascertains that political parties have ideologies like left-wing, right-wing, liberal etc, and questions the WP to declare theirs, he does not tell us what is his party's own ideology? So pray tell Mr Nair what is the PAP's ideology? Right-wing, centre-left, ultra conservative? He says the PAP's position on the issues is well known! Perhaps he's right - the PAP declared that it places Singaporeans at the heart of the issues and then goes out and plans to increase the population through mass immigration when they caused the problem with the ill-timed "Stop at 2" policy. The PAP declares that it'll keep housing cheap and affordable but even 30 year shoe-box apartments costs in excess of $100,000. His PM declares that in a competitive region like South East Asia, neighbouring countries are 'out to steal our lunches' yet it's his own Govt and party that opened the floodgates and allowed cheap labour to drive salaries down and keep Singaporeans out of better jobs. Yes Mr Nair, the PAP's ideology is well known, not centre-left, centre-right, liberal or conservative - it is 'top-down'. Its' policy is simple, we at the top, decide, and you at the bottom, follow.

November has come and is about to go, but Ashley Madison Singapore is a 'no-no'.

Anyway let's look into his article which he titled 'Uniquely Singapore Politics'. He chose the most unimportant and useless issue to hit out at the WP - the banning of the 'Ashley Madison' - a website that appears to promotes adultery. He praises fellow MP, Denise Phua for categorically opposing it and slams WP's Pritam Singh for merely asking a question without making his stand clear. Mr Nair, whether Ashley Madison is banned or not, is not to going make Singaporeans sit up and ponder how to pay the monthly utility bill or housing loan. It's not going make us worry about the proposed rise in transport fares. In fact Mr Singh's question has more meaning that your good friend Ms Phua's question - what is the Govt's position on 'societal agents'? Yes, the banning of 'Ashley Madison' may not be such a bad thing, but what is the bigger picture? How will the Govt deal with websites that call for a change in societal behaviour? Today it is adultery, what about say 'gay rights', 'human rights', 'freedom of speech' and 'detention without trial'? What if a website openly challenges the Govt stand on the latter? I think that is a far better question that merely supporting the Govt ban on 'Ashley Madison'.

As this FB post suggests, I don't think Ms Denise Phua needs Mr Nair's declaration of support. She's just at ease in taking to FB to lambast those who criticise her and her Govt, as Mr Nair is with dealing with non urgent issues.

Talking about detention without trial (CLTP Act), he also hit out at WP's Sylvia Lim for not speaking out about it but finally accepting it with a heavy heart. Doesn't that answer the question, Mr Nair? In fact I had a chance to talk to Mr Singh once on FB about this law. He agreed with me that the Internal Security Act had outlived its 'sell-by date' but accepted that the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act was still necessary to deal with criminal elements like secret societies, drug traffickers and cross border human traffickers. The WP like many of us, do not like 'detention without trial' but accept that it may still be needed for at least another renewal, until we can say we have better measures to deal with these kind of gangs that can be hard to track and prosecute.

As a top notch big shot Senior Counsel, I'm amazed Mr Nair even bothered to ask the WP about Section 377A of the Penal Code. Surely as such a senior lawyer, he would know that the issue in on-going in the Courts, and everyone has to await their determination of its validity.

Mr Nair goes on to list other things which he accuses the WP of sitting on the fence on like the 'hijab issue' and 377A amongst other things. Well the 'hijab issue' as the WP suggest does really need public debate, instead of the Govt taking a stand which is now opposed by many in the Malay-Muslim community, why not have a direct and open dialogue with them? Why not hear them out before making the decision not to lift the ban? As for 377A, this is an issue that is not urgent, because firstly, there is an on-going court case to determine the validity of the section and secondly, the public's stand on this is not fully known. In most countries that have allowed some degree of gay rights, it has been put to a vote or referendum, isn't this the best approach too, to resolve the issue 1 way or the other? Have a public debate and put it to a vote (like a side proposition in the next GE). Why should the WP take a stand on this issue? Is it pressing?

Yes, $1000 a month salaries can buy HDB flats, why doesn't Mr Nair help his residents in achieving this goal?

You see Mr Nair, unlike the WP, you can only raise your voice to discuss non contentious and non-urgent issues like those you wrote about in your article. Why not challenge the WP on the big issues like runaway housing costs, the 6.9 million population White Paper, far too relaxed labour laws that has opened the floodgates, rising transport costs and the plight of the poor?  Why not challenge your dear DPM Shanmugaratnam on being able to afford a flat at $1000 a month salaries? Why not ask Minister Chan Chun Sing about the fact that nearly 300,000 Singaporeans (that's nearly 10% of the actual citizen population) survive on $5 or less for their meals daily? Instead of praising MPs for speaking out on Ashley Madison, why not praise MPs and Ministers that want to raise transport fares, who say health costs are affordable and say that the HDB is losing millions? Don't they also deserve your special praise and support?

Sing Ming residents receiving their free lunches. Without it some would go hungry the whole day. Did Mr Nair realise this when he was the MP in charge?

But then again, isn't it also true that you must sing from the same song-sheet? You can't ask the hard questions, because you either don't know or don't want to know what is the reality on the ground. As the MP that oversaw Sin Ming, did you ever go to the 'poor man's block' (the 1 room Blk 26) in your ward other than on official business? Do you know that there is still today residents who sleep under the block at night? Do you know that there are some who don't have 3 meals to eat daily? And if the 'free lunches that are provided daily by some NGO' is stopped, there will be some who have to go the whole day hungry? Did you even bother to find all these out when you were the MP who oversaw this block and others in your ward?

I think not, instead you are busy on FB to lambast the WP on a non-issue like Ashley Madison and to talk about having electric cars in Singapore:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/its-electrifying/606429452736989

Well perhaps you should write to the producers of the British TV show - Top Gear, and ask for a copy of their program that dealt with the issue of electric cars in the UK. You will see how impractical it was in Britain, a country that has already tested and implemented it. Why it failed to take off and why it's still very faraway from replacing petrol and diesel powered vehicles.

Top Gear star Jeremy Clarkson getting help for his electric car in the episode in question.

And let us not forget the sob story you raised about the sacrifices you make in life as an MP:

http://www.singapolitics.sg/supperclub/hri-kumar-nair-papa-i-don%E2%80%99t-want-you-be-mp-anymore

How taken aback you were that your daughter suggested that she didn't want you to be an MP anymore because you returned home late after attending Meet-the- People's sessions on Tuesdays. Perhaps if you took a step back from the million dollar paying job as a big time lawyer, and you would have ample time to serve the 'part-time $15,000 a month MP's job' and spend it with your daughter and family. But you don't want to stop being a high profile Senior Counsel and partner at the law firm don't you? Nope, instead you lay the blame on being an MP. Well I'm sure you spend your whole week around that singular Tuesday dealing with irritating residents, the odd constituency event and the infrequent occasions Parliament sits. After all, it's only you that speaks on issues in the House, your vote is so crucial that you have to be present at each and every roll call, because the Govt could fall at any time if you didn't vote for them. I think you should heed your daughter's advice - for a 6 year old, she's clearly very smart and observant, she already knows what the voters want. If you don't believe her, why don't you beg the PM to let you contest Thomson as a single member constituency?

Perhaps Mr Nair should have taken note of this before quoting Alexander Hamilton!

You talked about freedom of choice after all didn't you, why not give the residents of Thomson the freedom of choice to vote for you as their MP? Don't go hiding around Alexander Hamilton quotes. If Mr Hamilton was alive today, he would cringe at the thought that an elitist back-door MP is using his quotes. If he could hear you today, he would be turning in his grave - he among the founding fathers of the 'Bill of Rights' and you, an out of touch, underperforming and political mouthpiece lecturing us on democracy and freedom of choice. Mr Hri Kumar Nair, forget about being an attack dog that hopes to sink its teeth into the WP. You are no attack dog, you are just a barking dog - all sound but no bite. Take this advice - Quit while you're losing! And that's a quote I'm happy to let you use for eternity.

(Sorry for the scripting issues that seems to cause the words to run, I can't seem to solve it)

Grace Fu is the 2nd woman full Minister in Singapore. Unfortunately she doesn't actually hold a portfolio, she's a Minister in the PMO and only 2nd Minister for the Foreign Affairs and Environment Ministries. But in a way you've gotta admire her political savvy. After her introduction into politics in 2006, she was made junior minister in a few ministries. She probably hoped to make the step-up after GE 2011, especially with the defeat of the 1st woman full Minister - Lim Hwee Hua. Unfortunately that didn't materialise.

Oblivion after politics - after losing her seat and millionaire Ministerial position, Lim Hwee Hua now has to eat roti prata at foodcourts.

 But Ms Fu is no shrinking violet, instead of accepting her fate, she upped the ante, and made a strong pitch of her sacrifices in entering politics in a FB post about the decision to reduce the enormous wages of Ministers:
 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/minister%E2%80%99s-comments-on-pay-cuts-spark-public-debate.html

As the above article suggests, many ordinary Singaporeans were not very amused with her comments. It however does seem now after some reflection, that they were wrong and completely misunderstood her remarks as she re-iterated. You see, Ms Fu had given out some very useful advice, an advice that is oft heard but somehow always seemed to be forgotten. It's no point working hard and making sacrifices, if all these efforts is not recognised. In other words, it's not just about working hard, but working smart, and making damn sure your boss knows that you are doing so.

No such misery for Ms Grace Fu, she gets to rub shoulders with Nobel laureates like Aung San Suu Kyi.

And so it proved with the PM coming out in support of her in a speech to the House, shortly thereafter:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/grace-fu-was-completely-right--pm-lee.html

What everyone except her had failed to see and heed, is that you gotta make your pitch to the one person that matters and ignore everyone else. Just like the advice given to soccer referees: It doesn't matter if the whole stadium thinks you are 'kayu', as long as you impress the one man in that stadium that truly matters - the referees assessor. Ms Fu was merely heeding some good advice and remembered that Ministers are appointed by PM and serve at his pleasure. And she was duly rewarded for her sacrifices and pleas, when the PM made her a full Minister in his department 7 months later.

Soccer referees don't care if players and fans think they are wrong, as long as their boss - the Assessor thinks they were right.

Anyway back to the present, Ms Fu as you know is now a very busy Minister, even though she's only 2nd Minister at 2 ministries. She's had the chance to travel, visit and observe other countries in those roles. 2 of these countries were Sweden and Japan, and she made a reference to them in a speech last Saturday at the Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership graduation ceremony:

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/11/16/grace-fu-highlights-pitfalls-of-sweden-and-japan/

Since the above post at TR Emeritus basically admonishes her for her simplistic views on the matter, I don't think I should add too much fuel to the fire, after all, this article is supposed to be promoting her abilities, not 'dumbing them down' - far from it. Let's instead look at another speech she made yesterday, to mark World Toilet Day:

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/11/19/grace-fu-announces-revised-code-on-public-toilet-standards/

Now this is the Grace Fu, that displays the sterling qualities and sacrifices that propelled her to Ministership. Notice how well she 'kills 2 birds with 1 stone' - calling for better toilet designs for elderly males and having 5 cubicles in women's toilets for every 3 urinals in men's toilets! That's a real score for woman's rights! Perhaps AWARE should make her a 'Grassroots Advisor' in the same way the People's Association makes every PAP MP one. Ms Fu would have surely gotten AWARE to object to 'the Purple Light Song' in a way that had the men rooting for its axing.

AWARE Singapore was caught unawares by the unhappiness of their decision to get the SAF to ban 'Purple Light'. If they only had Ms Fu to advise them, it would be the SAF that first bans the song and be begging AWARE to endorse it!

Make no mistake, this is no small feat or laughing matter, public toilets are a national issue that we must take seriously, because let's face it, all of us have to use them at one point or another. She hit it on the nail when saying, 'Having better designed toilets would improve the way the public uses toilets'. Ms Fu has clearly shown great foresight in tackling a very pressing issue that affects our everyday life. This is what is expected of Ministers whom we pay the highest salaries in the world for. Foresight, wisdom, planning and an understanding of everyday issues.

Grace Fu with US Vice President Joseph Biden. I wonder if she advised him on public toilet policy?

Now if only we could get Ms Fu to look into the small matter of elderly persons working as toilet attendants to get by, and how to ensure they get a decent pay, if they can't just quit the job and have a happy retirement. But this is another issue altogether that needs the attention of a full ministerial portfolio. For this reason, I hope that the Prime Minister will seriously look at the great work already done in this field by Ms Fu, and make her Minister of Toilets. If he can create new ministries for people like Lawrence Wong and Chan Chun Sing, surely he can create one especially for Ms Fu. With her sacrifices, vision, leadership skills and political savvy, I'm sure she'll 'cut the crap out' and make toilets a beautiful haven and pleasant working environment for all the elderly folks. Mind you, she'll not only score another for women in the Cabinet but create a lasting legacy that will remembered in years to come. Imagine 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now when you have to do 'your business' in a beautifully designed public toilet, whom will you thank? Yes it'll be that 'brilliant and wonderful Grace Fu!'

Kee chiu if you think Ms Fu should get a newly styled Ministry of Toilets, just like the man himself got when the PM carved out one for him.

Let's start a campaign to ensure she gets her just rewards and legacy by ensuring she becomes Singapore's 1st Minister for Toilets! To borrow a phrase made popular by her Cabinet colleague, Chan Chun Sing - All those who are in favour - Kee Chiu!

For all his talk of having a 'conversation' with the people and a Govt that will listen and take heed of the desires of the people, it seems our dear Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, cannot hide his inner feelings - that the PAP 'has, is and will always be right'. Take his recent remarks at the Chinese newspaper - Lianhe Zaobao's 90th anniversary celebrations on Friday:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/we-must-fight-back-against-trolling--pm-lee-010159521.html

He assumed that readers of 'new media' platforms are likely to be those who are not contented as opposed to those who read broadsheets. "People who are contented don't have time to go online, those who are unhappy will complain online." He alluded that this was a 'worldwide trend' after responding to a question that the Govt was disconnected from the people.

The PM with his Malaysian counter-part in a 'selfie' at the recent CHOGM. How out of touch is he if he thinks that posting a selfie will never elicit negative comments?

It's strange even shocking that a Prime Minister of a supposedly democratic country, could and would make such a sweeping statement and then say it's a normal thing worldwide. No Prime Minister, I don't think you'd find Messrs Cameron, Harper, Abbott, Key, even President Obama, would ever make the same statement or share the same sentiments. In these countries, it's a given that people have a right to comment on issues especially Govt policy, and would never be brushed off in the same fashion.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper with NZ PM John Key (r). I don't think either of them will be concerned with negative statements made about them online.

I wonder which worldwide trend he's been following, perhaps it's true that the PAP lives in their 'own world' and in their world contented people never go online to comment, even criticise certain policies. Perhaps if he was talking about porn, I could believe him, I don't think people who go online to watch or surf porn are contented sexually! But to suggest reading and commentating on new media platforms reflects one's discontentment, simply put, is dumb and out of touch with reality. Mr Prime Minister, I'll have you know, that I know many people even those that vote for your party who choose to solely go online to get their news fix and yes, they do comment. I don't think any of them are discontented in life. They are discontented alright, but only because of the stupidity and one sided reporting that main stream media (MSM) broadsheets dish out daily, 365 days year. There is just so much 'bullshit' one can stomach, even for your own supporters. Many simply want to see what alternative sites are suggesting and to get news from another source to verify it's accuracy.

The Straits Times is a must if you want to read about China. One does wonder if it's a controlled broadsheet of 2 countries.

Just take a look at your controlled papers - the Straits Times (ST), New Paper and Chinese broadsheets. Their news are boring, who in the right mind is gonna read each and every speech made by a Minister and sometimes your fellow PAP MPs, which these papers re-print with unflinching regularity? Who's gonna be bothered with page after page on events in China like the CCP Congress which the ST dutifully details, year in year out? Sometimes I wonder if we are really a province in China, when reading the MSM. Let's take letters to the Press, out of 10, sometimes nearly all will be ones praising your party to the hilt and even on the rare occasions an opposition leaning reply gets in, it would be heavily edited to deflect the blows intended for perceived Govt failures. This scenario is repeated on their online versions. Any comment that is perceived anti-Govt is edited/deleted and the user eventually banned.

BBC Online strives to give the news as it happens instead of harping on Op Eds.

If the PM wants to see the demise of alternative media sites, then all he simply has to do, is tell the MSM to start accepting and printing more letters, comments and replies from the other side, even if they are critical of the Govt. But such press freedoms are clearly never on the PAP's remit, and as such there will always be people who no longer trust MSM sites and will instead make a bee-line to alternative media sites and international news media that simply report the news as happens. Unlike local MSM, international media sites have a clear distinction on how they report the news as it happens, and how they offer correspondents and participants' comments and reflections on these events.

Obviously the PM hasn't read the comments of readers in response to this 'famous statement' he made during GE 2006. He might not think too highly of Youtube after all.

Coming back to his remarks, he lamented on the rise of trolling which he says, prevents the Govt from getting the correct feedback, because they resort to abuse and hate-mongering. As a result the Govt feedback portal: Reach will require users to register before they are allowed to comment. He cites the examples of Yahoo, Youtube or Google which require users to register and use their accounts before commentating. He added that another MSM - 'Today', has done the same and the situation as far as comments has improved tremendously.

I am no child of the Internet, but straight up I can't believe that the PM can fall for such simplistic logic. Does he really understand how the Web works? Of course Google, Youtube and Yahoo will require users to register before commentating, how then do you think they make their revenue? They have to show genuine readership and interest, before advertisers will bite. There is such a thing as 'number of users registered' that advertisers look for.

Contented people should heed the PM's advise and not visit his Facebook page (a).

And has he actually bothered to read comments on Yahoo or Youtube before making the reference? Does he know that trolling still happens in these sites? That users can create multiple IDs and still comment? Perhaps he's been looking at his Facebook page, to see how well maintained it is, with almost no negative comment in sight? Then again why Mr PM do you have a FB page? Contented people like you and your followers do not have the time to go online to read all the stuff that you're supposed to doing ain't it? How come all your MPs also have FB pages listing all the great and good they do? After all the contented people won't be bothered with such things, they will simply go to the ballot box and mark the X next to the logo of 'the lightning symbol', wouldn't they? Why bother with such things?

The answer is obvious, it's all a charade - plainly speaking the Govt simply does not like to hear or read of negative comments in any of their sites, be it Reach, their FB pages or on the MSM. How so often have heard all these negative comments referred to as 'noise'? The bottom-line of this whole reference to trolling is simply this - you don't troll, only our own PAP supporters can. Trolling is never an issue for any Admin of any page, even one as 'great' as Reach. Why? Because all it takes is '1 click of the mouse' and the troll's ID is banned and all his comments deleted. That is why you find FB pages of the PM and his MPs generally looking so wonderful with praises ringing from comment to comment. Unless there is really some user or resident coming online to share a positive comment, you'll find that the commentators themselves are trolls. You'll see the same IDs on the FB pages of virtually every PAP MP and for good measure they will create their own pages to lambast and criticise the opposition parties. And since they are so concerned with alternative media sites like The Real Singapore, Singapore Alternative BlogSpot, TR Emeritus and others, they actually bother to create FB pages attacking these sites. And still they aren't finished, they will actually create multiple IDs and go to these sites to firstly, pour scorn and criticise the readers who support these sites and secondly, claim to 'present the truth' by regurgitating the Govt position and explanation on issues.

Cartoonist Leslie Chew pokes fun at PAP trolls in this episode of his comic strip.

I had initially wanted to share the names of these troll sites and perhaps even identify some of them, but I think they are the ones who's so desperate for attention, why should I give them more? If you wanna find out who these PAP trolls are just go to a few PAP MP's FB pages, you'll soon see a number of recurring IDs and websites. They used to appear on alternative news media sites as well, but since they have been banned, they now resort to using to using multiple IDs to post their drivel. But if you're are really into investigating this or for a good laugh at the extent of their pathetic behaviour, you'll soon be able to tell who is who despite the multiple IDs. In the end as a good investigator would say, you can mask your name but very few can change a style or pattern especially when writing something. But I'll oblige with 1 example below:

Such is the ridiculousness of the PAP trolls that a negative remark about runaway health costs has to be attacked and put in some positive spin (a). Needless to say it backfired.

Yet you seldom see opposition supporters or the authors of alternative sites bothering to go to PAP pages and commentating. Maybe it's obvious they know it'll get deleted but more importantly, they have their own pages to look after or comment in, why would they want to comment on PAP ones, when the primary reason for their own pages was to be the alternative? Yet the PAP trolls just don't get it, they have their own pages, they have their Reach, they have the MSM, they have their PM's and MPs pages, yet they still must come and troll the opposition and alternative news media sites!

As for Reach, if the PM wants people to register, just because he doesn't want to hear differing views or be in a position to respond to every differing view, then he's free to do it. In reality it doesn't change anything, the Govt will practise its top-down policy, dissent while no longer possible to be silenced, will now just be ignored.

According to the PAP mindset, comments like the above following a remark from former PM Goh, is not constructive but hate-mongering. And those Singaporeans who replied have been duly declared as trolls.

As for trolling, perhaps he should start with his own house, because the biggest trolls have all come from there. In fact before I started blogging this year, I encountered a few during the GE 2011 period, after I made 1 or 2 negative comments about the Govt. Suddenly I found myself with a few 'friend invites' from 'people I never knew'. And no there were not opposition supporters, there were either new FB accounts made by persons wanting to read and see whom I was sharing these comments with or persons open declaring their PAP support and rebutting these negative comments. Strangely these accounts were deactivated after the elections were over. I wonder if you encountered similar ones? But perhaps the PM shouldn't ban his own PAP trolls, their desperate attempts to defend each and every policy no matter how flawed it is, has long been a source of amusement for many of us.

Even today I don't believe everything I read it even if it's from the alternative view. I don't oppose every Govt policy and certain good policies must be retained because good policies are not the preserve of any 1 party. Govt is elected to serve the people and never the other way round. Even a bad Govt will have a few good policies and although I will still not class the PAP as inherently bad, I think they have lost touch with the ground and reality. 54 years of continuous rule has made them rusty, overbearing and placing retaining power over service. A change of Govt and a short period in opposition would be the best course for the country and for themselves.

Since I started blogging I've tried to steer clear of writing about Goh Meng Seng (GMS), the former National Solidarity Party (NSP) leader, for the simple reason: he's just not worth the effort. He was just a lightweight political wannabe who imagined himself as a great leader. Maybe he even thought he might be the next Lee Kuan Yew! Thankfully after his ill-fated run for elected office in GE 2011, he decided to quit active politics, and chose to be a political pundit. No harm in that, because if one truly believes in democracy than we gotta give imbeciles like him the right to share his 'wealth of experience and opinion'.

To quote Churchill, Goh Seng Seng is 'a modest little man, with much to be modest about.' Unfortunately he thinks he's King Kong!

And boy has he been busy with opinions on anything and everything, especially when it comes to opposition politics. Still this was no reason to depart from my decision to ignore him altogether. However that all changed last week when he decided to write an article in response to his former protégé Nicole Seah's Ground Zero Facebook post. In that post, Ms Seah has described this year as her 'Annus Horriblis', as she reflected on her missteps since the last GE and how she planned to overcome them in future. It was a truly a brave and honest admission on her part. Very few politicians, let alone youngish 27 year old ones, have the courage and ability to analyse and reflect in the manner she did.

Nicole Seah rides in a train. Her 'down to earth' demeanour won her many admirers during GE 2011.

Even so, she did not actually name names of those whom she felt had let her down, neither in any way did she criticise her party's leadership, past or present. Essentially she acknowledged her faults and came up with a pledge to herself to remedy the situation. Instead of sympathising with Ms Seah and offering encouraging words of wisdom and guidance, and doing so in private given his previous rapport with her, he chose to do the only thing he knows best since entering politics - writing a bitter article to snipe at her while pretending to offer advice and encouragement. Since GMS has decided to stoop so low, I think it's appropriate that I lift my self-imposed ban on him and give him the discredit and humiliation he truly deserves. Then again, given his interactions with the public both on and offline over the years, I doubt he even would be affected or feel remorseful for his actions. He lacks the plain decency and courtesy, you hope to see in elected officials. Even though I've criticised and mocked PAP MPs, I think even the ones I ranked the lowest like Lee Bee Wah and Tin Pei Ling, have far more culture, class and common-sense than he will ever have.

Goh Meng Seng in Worker's Party 'blue'. Looking back now, one can infer his outburst and resignation had a lot to do with his failure to get his own way in the party.

Before I go into his ill-worded article, let's just refresh ourselves with his 'history'. He joined the WP aged 31 in 2001 and was on the slate of the Aljuneid GRC team that contested GE 2006, and narrowly lost. In between he even rose to hold a seat in the party's Central Execo (CEC). Barely 6 months later, it all ended in tears when he got embroiled in a heated exchange in an online forum and thus tarnished his party's reputation. He appeared to take the 'gentlemanly course' then by declaring that he was accountable for his actions and admitted damaging the party. He stressed no one forced him out and he took the decision on his own, while pledging to continue working for the party, albeit as a supporter on the outside.

Sammyboy's Sam's Alfresco Heaven forum. Inappropriate and offensive? Not to Goh Meng Seng, who was a regular contributor there.

But that did not last very long, murmurs of discontent with the WP were soon heard and seen in online posts by him. Oh yes, he's a very active one on the Web (perhaps he fits the mould that PM Lee says of unhappy people who go online). And 1 of the online forums he joined was none other than 'Sammyboy!' I also think Sammyboy has rich, sometimes 'colourful' and 'juicy' tidbits about Singapore politics. But it's long been associated with sleaze and prided itself with being 'the most offensive forum in Singapore'. I'm sure no other politician, let alone a party leader, would want to be seen engaging in debates in that forum.

Anyway GMS joined the NSP in 2007 and claims he was co-opted into the CEC, even though he 'didn't ask for it'. In his article to Ms Seah, he tries to paint a positive picture of himself working the ground tirelessly and yet never coveting the leadership or SG (Secretary General) position. Only after Ken Sun relinquished the position was he 'persuaded to run' and in typical fashion even mentions a possible rival to the position. Again he declares his magnanimity by offering to stand aside, if his rival could secure 2 nominations. Was this really necessary for him to disclose, as a former party leader? Isn't the party ballot a private internal affair? Do we hear other parties be they SDP, PAP or WP disclosing all these internal party secrets? Nope, but GMS has to paint himself as a Saint and play the reluctant hero.

Never had a slogan been so true! The voters of Whampoa had a voice and choice, and it certainly wasn't for a 'dinosaur' like Ken Sun

He then leads the party into GE 2011, and despite having some stellar names like Ms Seah, Hazel Poa and Jeannette Chong, he failed to secure any seats for himself or his party. In fact in his own contest in Tampines GRC, he stood an excellent chance against the hugely unpopular Mah Tow Tan, the PAP team leader. Instead of focussing his energies there and taking the case to the people, he just couldn't stand the limelight Ms Seah was getting in her Marine Parade contest. He had to be part of it too, spending needless time and energy on stage and by her side, while ignoring the hot button housing issue that made Tampines vulnerable. Instead of being a dynamic and strong leader and picking strong teams to contest in winnable seats, he proved totally ineffective and continued to let 'dinosaurs' like Ken Sun run in a possibly winnable Whampoa seat. I voted in Whampoa, and although the PAP's Heng Chee How was a former loser (in Hougang), pitting Ken Sun against him was a mismatch. He was much younger and campaigned harder, while Ken Sun looked like 'the tired old punch drunk fighter trying for one last hurrah'. Still he managed around 1/3 of the votes. A stronger candidate would have made this SMC competitive. Unfortunately the party contesting there was led by GMS, an apologist and a weak strategist.

Hazel Poa, Goh Meng Seng's successor as National Solidarity Party Secretary General. He does like 'picking on' women it seems.

Barely a month after the fruitless campaign, GMS quits the SG position and announces he'll let his membership lapse. As with his WP resignation, he cites needing to take stock of his life, wanting to help his deceased brother's family cope and go into business. He also declares the party is in good hands. But as now revealed in his letter to Ms Seah, all that was mere bluster. Instead of being a true party leader who accepts that the buck stops with him after such a failure and that party members and even the public had a right to demand a change of direction, he now declares that there was a 'new clique' of younger members led Hazel Poa, who were 'eager' for leadership positions. He even suggests that he 'knew' Ms Poa would never make it, but nevertheless vacated his position. What does this say about the man and his dedication for the party? Where's his loyalty to the party? If he truly felt Ms Poa was unsuitable why not voice it out? Why not suggest someone else instead? Why quit? No, that's not his way or style. He knew he couldn't win, and just hoped that he would be proven right if Ms Poa herself relinquished the position, as she just recently did.

Tan Kin Lian (in suit) with his principal advisor GMS. We can always rely on GMS to 'advise' us whom are the best candidates to vote for!

And now that Ms Seah has herself complained of burn-out, he again adopts the 'I just knew it line'. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, eh, GMS? He goes on to list all the 'predictions' he had made that now have come true. The only problem is that he kept these 'predictions' to himself and made no mention of it until now, when something negative has happened. He basks in self-glory, comparing the 'wonderful achievements' he secured for the party under his leadership while pouring scorn on the perceived failures of his successors and juniors. Reading through that article addressed to Ms Seah, I can come to 1 simple conclusion, the NSP should count itself fortunate that GMS has 'left the building'. Had he stayed on, the party would have definitely drifted into oblivion under his weak and childish leadership. And looking back now, it's perhaps better for the residents of Tampines GRC that he didn't win because of his inept campaigning. No doubt Mah Bow Tan retained his seat, but at least Tampines gained a better Minister and leader in Heng Swee Kiat. Imagine if they had GMS instead of him? A petty and small minded man, who bears grudges and 'throws his toys out of the pram like a spoilt child' if he doesn't get his way. Don't forget he's also the man who advised (and campaigned) Tan Kin Lian to run for the Presidency. Only to see him finish last, lose his deposit and in doing so take enough votes away from Tan Cheng Bock and thus propel Tony Tan to the Presidency!

And he's not only laid into the NSP, he still bears a grudge against his previous party - the WP. You'll find him posting numerous online rants attacking them like these. He also accused the WP MPs of getting their priorities wrong, not speaking up when they should and speaking when they shouldn't, as he enjoys 'the show' while 'eating his popcorn.' And in the same manner he snipes at Ms Seah under the guise of 'advice', he dished out the same to his former comrade in arms in GE 2006 - Ms Sylvia Lim. Ms Lim as we know is now dating former football star, Quah Kim Song. This is GMS'"advice" for her:

"People never learn here. It's strange that Sylvia Lim didn't use her usual no comment style when approached about this little romance. It's after all a private matter. She basically put herself in a very vulnerable position with this literal admission of dating romance. I don't think she even know who's she dating except that he's a former soccer star!  This is just a brew for disaster in the making...sigh.."

Sylvia Lim and Quah Kim Song. Perhaps GMS had a 'relationship' with Quah, since he was able to advise Sylvia that Quah was unsuitable for her!

Can you imagine such a spiteful and pathetic statement like that? Who needs enemies when you have 'friends' like GMS? To top it off he claims to be a 'political pundit' who's with the 'pan-opposition cause!' He's no pundit, he's a pun and a pathetic one at that. I'm no great pundit myself, certainly no romance counsellor like him and do not know Ms Seah or her circumstances well enough to offer advice or 'words of encouragement' like him. But I can give Ms Seah one very good and simple advice - delete him from your contact list and have nothing more to do with this 'pathetic excuse of a man' who suffers from illusions of grandeur.

Popular blogger, Alex Au Waipang who blogs at Yawning Bread is once again facing contempt of court charges over an article he wrote on October 5th. Previously he had also faced possible contempt charges over an article regarding the lenient sentenced meted out to renowned surgeon Woffles Wu. He alleged then that the court had in essence given such a sentence because Dr Wu was well-connected and rich. However before the charges could be heard in court, Mr Au accepted the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) offer of an apology and retraction of the offending article. The dropping of charges would obviously require an undertaking by him not to repeat further acts.

Plastic surgeon, Woffles Wu, got away with a very light sentence, no thanks to poor prosecution, not 'biased sentencing' as alleged by Alex Au.

In fact the AGC had intended to prosecute Mr Au over 2 articles he made in October:

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/contempt-of-court-blogger-alex-au-to-face-legal-action

However the Judge hearing the 'ex-parte' application by the AGC only granted permission for the first article and threw out the second. Before I touch on the article itself, let me just draw your attention to an entry Mr Au made on his blog in regards to this action by the AGC:

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/agc-versus-me-the-2013-round/#more-10588

In this entry, Mr Au alleges that the AGC acted sneakily by pursuing the application without informing him or his lawyers. It was only when Bloomberg contacted him by email, did he get wind of it. Anyway his lawyers turned up in court and was only given a 'watching brief' - meaning they could observe but take no active part. The AGC it seems was represented by the Dy Chief Public Prosecutor, whom Mr Au understands to be the 3rd highest ranking officer at the department. Obviously Mr Au makes reference to this by inferring some 'political' significance of his appearance. Perhaps Mr Au feels that he's an important figure that requires such an officer to make the application, well at least that's what can be inferred by his remarks. But as any lawyer will tell you, it makes no difference who's presenting the argument. For all we know, perhaps it was the Dy Chief's turn on the roster to appear in the High Court. Normally the AGC will assign a senior prosecutor to oversee in cases in the High Court. Current District Judge Jennifer Marie used to hold this position.

Yawning Bread blogger and gay rights activist Alex Au. It's hard to tell whether he actually relishes the attention generated by the possible contempt charges or is angered by it.

Anyway Mr Au feels aggrieved at the 'sneaky conduct' of the AGC. In reality this is indeed a norm even in other jurisdictions. Let me make simpler by giving some common examples, a) The Police require a search warrant or order of the Court, so the prosecutor will make an application and once approved it will be handed to the police for necessary action, b) The prosecution needs a court order to serve charges on an accused person and once approved it will again be given to the police for action. In both these cases, will the accused be given notice beforehand? Obviously not! So it's the same here, the AGC has to make an application before it proceed further. There's no need at this stage to keep Mr Au informed. Only after the application is approved, will the court require the AGC to return in 2 weeks to present its' case for a committal and serve Mr Au notice in the interim. It's then where Mr Au's lawyer can raise the objection. The Judge will decide if there's indeed grounds to proceed. If it's a yes, Mr Au will be served with the charge, if it's a no, the matter ends there (subject to any appeal of course). 'Ex parte hearings' are nothing sinister as Mr Au alleges. It happens all the time and has been served on numerous other persons in differing cases.

Let's turn to the offending article that landed Mr Au in trouble. Mr Au as we all know is gay, and he has been actively campaigning for gay rights, especially the abolishment of Section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises gay sex even between consenting men. Mr Au is obviously entitled to his sexual orientation and to campaign as such. In fact I would readily agree with him that Section 377A should be discarded as mentioned in this blog post:

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/09/its-time-to-repeal-section-377a.html

However I did caution that since the matter is before the courts, we should let the courts decide first and then after the verdict, see how best to proceed. There are 2 cases : Tan Eng Hong v AG and Gary Lim and Another v AG. Both these cases had failed at the first hurdle - in the High Court, with Justice Quentin Loh ruling both times that the law is not against the Constitution in regards to one's freedom. As such both cases are now headed for Singapore's highest court - the Court of Appeal (CoA), to determine the final legal outcome. If they succeed, the Law will be struck down, if they fail, then the only recourse is for either Parliament to abolish it or a referendum called to decide it.

Former Attorney General Sundaresh Menon, takes his oath of office as Singapore's 4th post independence Chief Justice.

What's interesting in these 2 cases is that for Tan's case, the AG was none other than the current Chief Justice (CJ) - Sundaresh Menon, whilst Justice Menon was not the AG at the time of Gary Lim's suit. The CJ almost always sits as one of the 3 judges that hear appeals in the CoA. However since technically he was named in Mr Tan's suit (Tan Eng Hong v AG), he cannot sit in Mr Tan's appeal in the highest court. Mr Tan's lawyer, M Ravi had made it known that he wanted Mr Tan's appeal (if his original case was thrown out) to be heard together with the other appeal. (Originally due to start on Oct 14):

http://queerville.com/singapore-tan-eng-hong-makes-application-to-intervene-in-anti-gay-sex-law-appeal/

Mr Au claimed in his article (it has since been taken down on the advice of his lawyers) that this was a master-stroke by M Ravi and it essentially threw 'a spanner in the works' in the High Court's attempt to get the CJ to hear the Gary Lim case. Obviously if Mr Tan's appeal is heard jointly, then CJ Menon has to recuse himself as he was a named party in one of the lawsuits. With the original decision of Mr Tan's case imminent, Mr Au alleged that High Court was in 'other words,' desperate to proceed with the Gary Lim case, just to ensure the CJ gets to hear it as well. He goes on to allege all this was 'in essence' to ensure that Gary Lim would lose his case and the law upheld. In simple terms, the CoA with the CJ sitting in would be biased and rule in support of the AG (or Govt).

Public Enemy No 1, would probably be a good term to describe Justice Quentin Loh , by gay rights activists, after he rejected 2 challenges on the validity of Section 377A

Anyway Justice Loh did indeed rule against Tan and his lawyer M Ravi promptly filed an appeal and asked for this case to be heard jointly with Gary Lim's. While Mr Au alleges something sinister, interestingly it appears that Gary Lim's and Kenneth Chee's lawyers, led by Deborah Barker SC, had also objected to a joint hearing as did the AGC. However the CoA agreed to Mr Tan's plea and both cases will be heard jointly by the CoA, probably starting in December 2013. This blogger explains the ruling:

http://ionsg.blogspot.sg/2013/10/court-of-appeal-does-right-by-tan-eng.html

Interestingly unlike Mr Au, he suggests that it was always an attempt to side-line Mr Tan by members of the gay community. Whatever it is, Mr Tan and the other parties, all will have their day in court. Whether it'll be successful, remains to be seen, but if you pushed me to wager on it, I'd say they'll likely lose. This has nothing to do with biasness or whatever sinister design, it's just that many courts even those in the West would be very slow to 'undo' a law passed by the legislature. Courts only interpret laws according to how Parliament intend it to be. Parliament can choose to make or unmake any law, although if a law they pass is unjust, the Courts can strike it down. The best recourse still for the gay rights lobby is to get the Govt to abolish the law or put it to a referendum. They cannot and should not blame the court if the decision goes against them. There unfortunately is a growing trend among lobbyists who pursue cases in courts, to reject any verdict other than the one they desire. Any such verdict is deemed 'unjust', 'evil' or 'biased'. This begs the question as to why they actually bothered to go to court in the first place? You go to court because you think you stand a chance, but you cannot go to court with the attitude that you are only prepared for 1 verdict - your own. You can disagree with the verdict but you gotta accept it. I think Al Gore summarised it best in his concession speech in the 2000 US Presidential Election - 'I strongly disagree with this verdict but I accept it'.

Threes a crowd, lawyers for gay couple, Kenneth Chee and Gary Lim (a) did not want M Ravi and his client Tan Eng Hong involved in their appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Let me end by returning once more to Mr Au and his actions. In my title, I suggested he's yearning for attention, perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not, maybe he just went overboard with his theories. Whatever it is, Mr Au has acted foolishly and did the cause of Messrs Tan, Gary and Kenneth no benefit whatsoever. First of all, CJ Menon is recognised worldwide as one the best civil litigators. All his actions throughout his career have been beyond reproach. Simply put, he would have been an excellent choice to sit on the Bench for these cases with the other 2 judges. Mr Ravi's intervention has now scuppered that. While I'm confident that the judges hearing the appeal would not be swayed by public opinion and comments, you can't help but feel it's really a stupid thing to do, to criticise the very people who are going decide your fate or cause. Judges are human too and statements like this do not serve any purpose. Moreover these cases do not directly involve Mr Au, why must he get himself entangled in it? Did he speak and ask either Messrs Tan, Gary or Kenneth, on whether he should comment as such, or whether it would help in the case in any way? Did he consult their lawyers? I think no lawyer in their right mind will advise a client or their friends to make disparaging remarks about judges hearing their cases.

Lawyer M Ravi with alleged Istana website hacker, Delson Moo. Mr Ravi's stock has been rising with a series of high profile cases including Tan Eng Hong's 377A legal challenge.

Who made Mr Au, a higher authority than the judges, lawyers and parties involved to prescribe his judgment over the matter, which has yet to be heard? Next Mr Au had already had a run in with the judiciary over the Woffles Wu case. He came close to being charged for making a spurious allegation that had no foundation in law. Yes, Woffles Wu got away lightly, but who should you blame that for - the court or the AGC? It has to be the latter for prescribing such a minor charge, judges can only sentence someone or try the cases that appear before them in the manner it's framed. The judge cannot substitute it with a higher charge if the prosecution decided to use a lower one. Instead of thinking reasonably and logically, he dived straight in and called the Court biased and corrupt, without any semblance of evidence to back that up other than his own myopic views on the matter. And once again he's dived straight in here to prescribe his own views and judgment on these cases.

Lastly, he was already warned the last time, any normal person would tread carefully and consult before producing an article like that. But no, he wants the fame or notoriety and become some sort of martyr for the 'gay rights cause!' And now that he's landed in 'hot soup' he boldly declares in his blog that he's seeking donations to help pay his legal fees which is expected to be well over $10,000. I'm sure he'll find people sympathetic to his plight and get some donations, maybe even in excess of the fees and costs required. But was it necessary or worth it? To fight a stupid case that had no direct bearing on him, and after he's been warned about such things. For his stupidity people have to fork out their hard earned money, he's just plain selfish on top of being really stupid.

Lawyer Yeoh Lian Chuan came out with some good advise on what you can and cannot say about the judiciary in a post on his Facebook page.

He has indeed raised some very good points on other matters in his blog that deserves praise, but his conduct in this matter is inexcusable. He should have known better and instead of blaming the judiciary and AGC or whoever, he should take a hard look at himself and be a man and admit his mistake. It's not too late, if he's really contrite and apologises, maybe the AGC might once again give another chance. Finally before I end, I'd like to share the writings of another lawyer, Yeoh Lian Chuan who explains a bit on what actually contempt of court is about and that this procedure (charges for scandalising the judiciary) is still the norm in many countries. You can read his article here.

The Traffic Police (TP) has relinquished its duty of enforcement action on illegal parking to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) since 2010. The whole idea was to free up officers to handle more serious violations and investigations. I had my qualms about that, because in essence TP personnel were police officers whereas the LTA personnel who were taking over were not. Police Officers in Singapore undergo training and attend refresher courses where they are explicitly trained when and how they should use their enormous powers conferred by Law.

A Traffic Police (TP) officer stopping a driver. Since the transfer of authority for illegal parking, TP is now focussing on moving offences.

Strictly speaking police officers can take enforcement action on any matter including parking where a specific law empowers them to do so. In fact police officers can summon vehicles illegally parked in HDB or URA carparks just as they could on a public road. However officers have been trained that these powers should be used only when the occasion for it arises. In other words, police officers are told to use discretion and to be sensitive to circumstances and the surrounding environment, when contemplating using such powers.

Traffic along Collyer Quay. This is a busy road during the day until late at night. It's fair to book vehicles that park illegally here.

Technically speaking any police officer whether on or off duty, can book any vehicle he sees committing an offence. He could for example spot a car parked on double yellow lines whilst travelling on a bus, and take note of its registration number and then proceed to lodge a violation report at any police station. However almost all officers don't resort to doing this, except in the most compelling circumstances, like a car beating a red light and nearly causing an accident. In fact most police units that do 'beat duty' do not go around issuing tickets for illegal parking, unless they received a complaint about it. Illegal parking has always been left to the Traffic Police and in-station traffic enforcement units. Even then, these units do not normally go around looking for vehicles to book, unless it's in areas that have a lot of complaints of rampant illegal parking or where illegal parking can cause a disruption to traffic flow. Areas like the CBD, Clarke Quay, Holland Village and Upper Serangoon Road (6th mile near Kovan) are some examples. Nonetheless, these officers will not 'camp; in these areas, just to book vehicles, they would instead look at the time of day when it's most rampant and proceed to take action. Very seldom will you see TP officers 'camping' or roaming the streets in the late hours (say after 11pm) or in the wee hours of the morning, seeking to issue tickets. A lot of discretion and common-sense was used in their approach to illegal parking.

And then came the transfer of duty to the LTA. LTA also had/has police officers attached to them. However these officers would normally only go after vehicles with illegal modifications, exceeding their laden weights or those failing to display their whole day licenses (for off-peak licensed cars). These officers would seldom stray into the remits of illegal parking, leaving it to TP and regular uniformed officers to handle. However with the transfer of this additional duty to LTA, these LTA police officers would be in no position to handle the large volume of illegal parking. So what the LTA did instead was to advertise, seek and employ 'enforcement officers' whose sole duty would be to deal with illegal parking. They would however not be appointed as police officers.

An LTA Enforcement Officer in action despite the obvious protestations of the rider.

What manner of training these officer receive, I'm unable to say, only that it's 4-6 weeks long, but it's fair to surmise that they do not receive the same intensive training as police or TP officers. However judging from numerous complaints from the public, they do not seem to be instructed to use and exercise discretion. And since the pay is not very high, it has not attracted the interest of a majority of Singaporeans. Moreover the promotion prospects are also not much to crow about, unlike their counter-parts in the police. So the LTA has done the very thing the Govt pretends to ignore - find foreigners who are willing to work for lower scale salaries. A Singaporean rider working as an Enforcement Officer would find it hard to survive on a salary in the range of $1200-$1500 a month (this I was told by a Malaysian enforcement officer). However this amount would be very lucrative to a Malaysian who's living in Johor, or has a place to reside here. The amount converted would be in excess of RM $3000, far above the salary of an average Malaysian. (I've also been told that some enforcement officers have been recruited from China, but I've yet to encounter one). Whatever it is, this job is lucrative to them and as such the majority of such officers are now foreigners.

An example of 'over-zealous' enforcement, this time by a HDB parking warden. Photo courtesy of Stomp.

Strictly speaking, employing them would not be the issue it is today if they had performed their duties in the same manner their predecessors in the police and TP had done. Taking action in 'hot spots' during the hours it's needed and exercising their discretion widely. Unfortunately this is not the case, these 'foreigners' have become over-zealous and unbending in their pursuit of finding each and every illegal parked vehicle at any time of day, irrespective whether or not it's a 'hot spot' or poses a serious obstruction or hazard to other road users. They would also 'hover over an area like a vulture' and 'move in for the kill' even late into the night or early in the morning. This has led many to speculate that enforcement officers have a daily quota that must be met no matter what, or that they receive a commission for each summon issued.

I think the former is true, but believe and hope the latter isn't. I hope the LTA will come out in the open and clarify this. Having a quota is a very bad idea, as it forces officers just to summon for the sake of it, instead of accessing each and every situation. I don't believe officers receive a commission for the simple logic - when has the Govt ever shared its collections? Our Govt is renowned for its exceptional methods in procuring monies, it's never known to share it unless for a special reason like the annual Budget giveaways. However in the unlikely possibility that officers do receive a commission, it would be a disgraceful practise. I hope LTA can clarify these 2 issues or perhaps an MP or two (especially the Opposition) can ask this question in Parliament and get a definitive answer.

Now to the main reason I penned this article - an incident that happened a short time back and made the news in today's New Paper:

http://www.tnp.sg/content/bus-fined-illegal-parking-while-waiting-funeral-party

A funeral was taking place in Serangoon North Ave 4, and a bus had arrived to ferry the mourners to the crematorium. Since the wake took place in a HDB block, it was impossible for the bus to enter the carpark to fetch them. So the driver parked along the road and went to get them to board the vehicle. The reader who notified TNP and other media, Clifford Ng, said the officer had parked his bike in front of the bus and as such prevented it from moving off. He was arguing with the driver who was pleading for leniency given the circumstances, however this was to no effect, even after other mourners tried to intervene and get him to see the logic for the parking. The officer declared he couldn't cancel the summons once he had 'entered it into the system.' So the summons was issued and it left a very bad taste to an already sorrowful event.

Another funeral vehicle was summoned last month in Bukit Merah, again by HDB. The photograph taker remarked that the officers were not local. That's 1 issue with employing foreigners who do not understand the way Singaporeans approach these things.

LTA has since commented on the matter and declared it's true that the officer cannot terminate or cancel the summons once the details are entered into the system and advised the driver to send in an appeal. In a further downplaying of the officer's lack of empathy, they added that he did not see any indication that it was to be used for a funeral procession. I find this explanation totally unacceptable and altogether unbecoming of an organisation that is part of a Govt that prides itself of being technically advanced. Then again this is not surprising, in fact I had written about their attitude in one of my first articles as a blogger. You can read it here.

What's unacceptable is the excuse that an officer cannot cancel a summons once he's halfway into it. We are not living in some backwater, underdeveloped technological society. What is so difficult to add a program into the system that allows the officer to cancel a summons? And don't tell me, this is to prevent abuse or give officers a chance to collect bribes, by taking money from an offender in lieu of issuing a ticket. If they trained their officers properly and have a system of monitoring this should not be an issue. Not to mention it reflects poorly if they do not have trust in their employees. Moreover if officers resort to bribery, eventually they will get caught, Singaporeans in general do not condone corruption. The other excuse they gave is that the offender can send in an appeal and for such cases it's likely it would be waived.

Fancy slogans, new buildings but very backward thinking and approach to dealing with summons cancellations.

This cannot be the policy statement of a Govt agency that prides itself in being productive. Why should a person have to send an appeal when the common-sense approach would be to cancel it on the spot? Perhaps the LTA higher-ups think everyone is like them, having cushy lives sitting behind a computer and passing judgment on everyone. Penning an appeal or going down personally wastes a lot of time. Moreover in this case if the driver is not well-educated, he would have to drive all the way down, pray tell where should he park his bus when he gets there? Will he get another ticket there as well? Moreover there's no guarantee each and every appeal will be successful, and people have to have the stress and anxiety about having a fine to pay hanging over their heads. Are the LTA senior management really that brain dead and without any form of empathy? I also had the misfortune of getting booked while stopping outside a clinic because I was very sick. The officer arrived and booked the vehicle, exactly at the moment I was being examined by the doctor. No empathy, simply -'cannot cancel, go and appeal.' I had to go  to LTA and the officer acceded to my request and duly cancelled it, but the whole experience left a bad taste in the mouth. It was like I had to beg for mercy and they decided to exercise their power to grant it to me and I had to grateful for it!

In this diagram, the 'star' marks the location where the prime mover was parked. Do you expect this road to be teeming with traffic at 10 pm on a Sunday night? Well LTA does.

Instead of saying they would counsel their officers to exercise discretion, I was given a warning that in future my pleas won't be entertained. In other words I gotta hope that I never fall sick while driving.  And I am not the exception, everyday thousands of Singaporeans are summoned religiously without any form of compassion or appreciation of the circumstances of the drivers. Just last night I was in Penjuru Close around 10pm. I spotted an enforcement officer issuing a ticket to a prime-mover cum trailer that was parked there. This was the only vehicle that had the prime-mover, there were 3 other trailers without the prime mover. So he couldn't issue a ticket to those only to this unfortunate vehicle. What makes this shocking is that, it was on a Sunday night with virtually no traffic whatsoever. Moreover as this was an area with storage facilities, it was logical for the trailers to be there, moreover there was no other place for them to park. It was a small side road not a major main road and these vehicles posed no danger or obstruction whatsoever. Yet this 'stupid officer' saw fit to issue a ticket to the 1 vehicle that he could issue a ticket on.

This is a scenario that is repeated all over the island daily and at the most shocking of times. It's now a normal thing to see officers issuing tickets at 1, 2, 3am or even later, on roads and estates with almost no vehicular traffic. Of course, LTA can simply come out and say that an offence is an offence irrespective of the time. Of course LTA can assume that if 1 can afford a vehicle, he or she can also afford the fine. If  you don't want to be fined, park properly or don't drive.

Another one bites the dust. A van parked late at night on deserted stretch of road has a ticket issued for illegal parking. How this is obstruction at the end of a 'dead end street' is a mystery only the LTA officer who issued the ticket knows.

Well firstly it's not always possible to find a parking lot everywhere you go to. Some HDB carparks are only for season holders after 1030pm or have very few lots for non-residents. Sometimes the only available lots are extremely faraway and requires a long walk. Sometimes people go to areas they are not familiar with. Sometimes late at night, they stop in places for barely a few minutes just to collect or send something. The parking is not indiscriminate and poses no danger or obstruction. Do they deserved to be summoned? And not every vehicle owner is rich, sometimes it's a company vehicle, whose fines they have to pay themselves. Some have a vehicle because it's a necessity or it helps to transport them and their families. Their budget is limited. They have set aside just the minimum for instalments, petrol consumption and parking, they don't own luxury vehicles and every fine is major issue financially. If they pose no obstruction or hazard in a lightly used road in the late hours, must they be religiously summoned?

You can be 'summoned' at a funeral wake, maybe even on your wedding day, but during elections, it seems that illegal parking does not occur.

If the excuse is going to be that the officers were not wrong to issue a summons, since an offence is an offence, pray tell, why then is there a directive issued orally or in writing, to 'go slow' during the election period? Oh yes, go ask any law enforcement officer who's willing to be honest about it. This is an unspoken rule, although some departments give this 'advice' in writing. Because it's feared that issuing summons during this period would anger the voters concerned so much that they would not cast a vote in favour of the ruling party. So is an offence not an offence when it can cost a certain party the vote, but remains an offence at other times irrespective of the conditions or situations? It's time someone took LTA to task for the manner they approach enforcement. Their whole approach is tactless as demonstrated in the funeral bus incident, their excuses deplorable in regards to the system they themselves introduced and their training and briefing of officers woefully inadequate. And they cannot have an excuse for their approach to enforcement, because if TP could do it for many years without issue, why can't they follow suit? Surely what is good for the goose has to be equally good for the gander!.

As with politics, there's also a certain number of  legal myths circulating among certain segments in Singapore and some are gaining ground with each passing day. However to be fair, some aren't really 'full myths', some are 'half-truths' - that is to say, some true facts that have been exaggerated to give it greater credence. Some of the myths, are a combination of 'conspiracy theories and presumed inferences' that when combined seem to generate a life of its own. Therefore I think it prudent to set the record straight about some of these myths. I do however know that some people will disagree with me and continue to believe what they've been told or hope to believe. I think that's their right and I won't begrudge anybody who disagrees with me. Instead I have a word of caution for them - the truth is usually very dull, nevertheless it is the truth.

So here's my list of the top 10 Legal Myths in Singapore (in no order of precedence). Since I would have to provide some explanation, I've broken it up into 2 parts of 5 each. Here's the first 5.

1) Foreigners get off lightly as opposed to Singaporeans

This is undoubtedly the most popular myth that's circulating today. What more with cases like the banker who punched a cabby and got away with a $4000 fine and a Briton who attacked a man in brawl, who eventually died. 

At first glance these 2 cases (and yes there have been some others) seem to suggest that this is not a myth, but a sad reality. 1 thing to remember though it's very easy to jump to conclusions based on what little information you read in the press or hear, be it from radio, TV or friends. In any legal case, the best way to understand a conviction or sentence imposed is to read the judgment of the trial court. You can read about some cases at the Subordinate and High Court web pages, which have the full grounds of decision. Not every case gets uploaded for the public but every case will have a transcript of the decision.

Bank Director Robert Mason Alford escaped the usual jail sentence for assaulting a cabby, because he successfully proved a psychiatric condition affected his actions.  

And if you've been following cases for as long as I do, you'll easily come to the conclusion that the opposite to the myth is true - the Courts have little tolerance for foreigners who come here for the purpose of committing crimes. They are always harshly dealt with, for example pick-pockets, credit card cheats and house-breaking gangs are sentenced above the normal sentencing structure for Singaporeans.

However for certain foreigners who are here legally, be it for work or visit, the courts will not sentence them to higher tariffs just because they are foreigners. They will be accorded the same equality as any other accused including Singaporeans. I can foresee the question - how come they seem to get off lightly as in the 2 cases cited.

This unfortunate cabby was assaulted with a wine bottle, the assailants were again Caucasians, but they escaped without ever being identified.

Quickly let's look at the 2 cases. In case 1, the FT banker who punched the cabby got away with just a fine as opposed to the usual tariff of jail for assaulting a public transport worker. This was due to the fact that he was able to provide 'expert testimony' that he was suffering from a mental condition at the time. This is not to say that everyone can use mental illness as an excuse - it's judged and accessed on a case to case basis. Moreover he has to get 'an expert' in this case a psychiatrist to confirm it, and the prosecution's own expert would either not be able to rebut it or agree with it entirely. Judges are not psychiatrists, they would rely on the this expert testimony if it was proven to be overwhelming in the execution of the offense, and as such give the offender an appropriate discount. You can check with any defense lawyer, if they can prove through expert testimony that their (local) client was suffering from a mental or clinical condition, the Courts would be slow to impose harsh punishment and may even acquit them altogether.

James Daniel Rhodes was jailed 18 months for assaulting 3 people. 1 of whom died, but the medical evidence failed to link the assault to the death.

In Case 2, this Briton had faced 3 charges of assault. Now assault has a lot of different classes and it has specifically to do with the type of injuries sustained. Just because you have a black eye doesn't mean it's gonna be a big case, unless it involves a permanent disfiguration of the face. The law gives precedence to fractures and when dangerous weapons are used in these acts Simple assault - Section 323 of the Penal Code, the penalty usually ranges from fines to a short jail term. Where there's a fracture it becomes grevious hurt and this can leads to longer jail terms and even caning.

Here the accused was charged with assaulting 2 other Caucasians as well as the deceased. At the time of his trial, the deceased was still alive. He died a week into the trial. The judge rightly ruled that the charges for the 2 other victims was not relevant to the news of the 3rd victim's death. That charge would be dealt with separately. He was convicted of the charge (the prosecution stood down 1 charge). As for the deceased, the key question would be the determination of whether the assault played a crucial part in his death. Here it all boils down to the medical report. The medical report found no casual link, as such neither the prosecution could introduce, nor the judge could find him guilty of a more serious charge - say manslaughter. As such he sentenced him to a jail term of 18 months plus an order of compensation of $32,000.

Raymond Elliot Pitcher was jailed 2 weeks for assaulting a cabby and made to pay him $5000 in compensation. Although the sentence does appear on the lighter side, it's not as if it's never been imposed on Singaporean offenders. Plus the $5000 fine is probably better compensation to the poor cabby than say an increased jail term without the same penalty.

Taken in totality of the circumstances of the case and the charges, a sentence of 18 months (I believe for Voluntary Causing Grevious Hurt), cannot in any way be described as lenient. If it was I'm certain the prosecution would have appealed. Instead you now find the defense appealing because it's on the higher side. Normal sentences for VCGH usually are around the 9-12 month range.

So are the courts biased against Singaporeans as opposed to FTs? The answer is no. However why some FTs get seemingly light sentences, is for the same reasons certain Singaporeans also get light sentences - they have no prior criminal record. Unlike criminal gangs who come here solely to commit crime, these FTs came here with no such intention, but somehow or rather got caught up in such acts. And they are treated as any first time offender and their sentences would depend on the gravity of the crime and the charge preferred. To punish them solely for being foreign would be a total miscarriage of justice.

2) The Courts favour the rich

This is another myth. But again from looking at certain cases, it does appear to have credence. The Woffles Wu case is perhaps the classic reference to support this myth. However if you read the article I linked, there seems to be consensus amongst lawyers that nothing improper happened. In fact if there's any blame to be attached it should go to the prosecution for charging him under that section where the maximum penalty was only a $1000 fine (which the Court duly imposed).

The fine of $1000 for Dr Woffles Wu (a) would hardly make a dent to his financial health. But the blame should go to the AGC not the Court, which imposed the maximum penalty for the charge.

I've said before and I'll say it again, the Court can only sentence someone based on the charge the prosecution prefers. Eg: You have certain cases of drug traffickers found with more than the 15g of pure heroin that would automatically attract the death sentence upon conviction, yet they are charged with only trafficking 14.99gm. Why? Because the prosecution decided to prefer that charge. Why do they do it for some and not for others is for them to answer, not the Court. The Court cannot sentence to death someone who although trafficked more than 15g, but was charged with a milligram lesser.

Judges do not prosecute, they try cases. They can amend an existing charge, say someone is charged for murder, but the facts suggest manslaughter, but they cannot simply reduce the charge to something lesser at the start. Only when the evidence adduced suggests something else can they convict him on that. This would only be for something lesser than originally preferred or substituted with a corresponding charge that better reflects the original charge based on the evidence. But if the prosecution prefers a lighter charge, the judge's hands are tied from the start.

O J Simpson is widely believed to have escaped with the murder of his ex-wife because of an excellent defense team.. However he was later jailed 9 years for another unrelated offense. He's seen here at sentencing in a Las Vegas courtroom.

So how come the rich seem to get away as opposed to the poor? Use simple logic, look at high profile cases in West like the O J Simpson case. Many people in the US also believe him guilty but he escaped, why? Because he could afford the best legal defense that was able to poke holes in the prosecution's case and raise a reasonable doubt. Those who are not so wealthy will not have the financial muscle to bring in the best lawyers to try and argue or find some legal loophole.

Many poorer or less rich defendants also plead guilty at the first instance and as such get tougher sentences, why? Shouldn't pleading guilty count as a discount? Yes, it does, however in many cases the prosecution (even elsewhere) tend to file the highest possible (or correct) charge first. Eg: say 2 persons A and B were caught stealing a motor-cyle. This charge is Section 379A. A cannot afford a lawyer and pleads guilty and is sentenced to 18 months jail (the usual norm). B however can, and he asks his lawyer to make 'representations' (that is to write in to the AGC). His lawyer proposes that B will plead guilty to a lesser charge of simple theft - Sec 379, and not go to trial. Now here the prosecution (a deputy public prosecutor - DPP) assess the strength of their case. If say certain witnesses are no longer available or the evidence against B is not so strong - it appears A was the prime instigator, the DPP might accede to the request and charge B only for Sec 379. He pleads guilty and gets only 6 months.

Was the Court being unfair? No. Was the DPP wrong? Probably not, because he had to balance the public interest and cost of trial and weigh it against the possibility that B if he went to trial, might get a full acquittal.

Ismail b Kadar escaped the gallows after a 6 year battle through the sheer determination of his lawyer.

This is not to say just because the rich can afford the best lawyers, they will always get off scot-free. If the evidence against them is compelling, even a Queen's Counsel (QC) would be of no use. But in certain cases where the case is not water-tight, if you can afford a lawyer or get an expert like mentioned above for cabby assailant, it can make a lot of difference.

Former Law Society President Phillip Jeyaretnam welcoming then Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Although he was notorious for enhancing sentences for appeals made before him, it didn't mean he did not quash convictions that were unsafe.

I'll quickly mention another case involving a doctor in the 90s. This elderly doctor was accused of molesting his female patient by squeezing tightly on her breasts during the examination. He was duly charged and found guilty in the Sub Courts. He appealed and the case went before the then Chief Justice Yong (who had a fearsome reputation of increasing sentences for frivolous appeals). The doctor engaged Sant Singh ( I believe, 1 of the top 5 defences lawyers) for the appeal. Mr Singh had to prove firstly that the breasts examination was a necessary procedure - he could with testimony from other medical experts. Secondly he had to justify the doctor's aggressive squeezing of the breasts. They brought in a top surgical expert who dealt with the control function of the nerves and he diagnosed the doctor as suffering from it, due to his old age (I forget the exact diagnosis). When he caught hold of something he tended to squeeze tightly because of this condition. Based on this new evidence and the DPP's inability to find another expert who could rebut this expert's diagnosis, CJ Yong duly quashed the conviction and acquitted the doctor.

Now would any normal person be able to afford to bring in an expert to re-examine like the doctor did? Obviously not, most would probably not be fully aware that such a condition existed in the 1st place, event the doctor didn't realise it, until he was referred to this top notch surgeon.

So this myth may have some truth in it, but not the full truth. The rich do stand a better chance of proving their innocence if they can find the means of paying top dollar to research and collate the evidence, but it does not in any way mean the Court simply favours them over normal persons because of their financial status.

3) The Courts are inconsistent and thus biased in sentencing generally.

This myth may reflect the first 2 mentioned but it can be a separate issue altogether. For example you see cases for person A committing an offence and getting a year's jail, while person B commits the same and get's 1 month. Take the case of 2 Chinese nationals stealing from donation boxes at Sultan Mosque. Here they both got 5 months jail, but it was established they came here specifically to commit crime.

Strictly speaking stealing a total of $1,719, is not a sentence that normally attracts a 5 month term. Even for an abhorrent an act as stealing from a mosque - a place or worship. Normally a person doing this would get around 2-4 weeks jail, but if you add in the 'place of worship' factor, it could go up to 6-8 weeks. Yet they copped 5 months, because of their pre-planned criminal intention. However due to the sensitivities involved many were not happy with this sentence. Some even mentioned on Facebook that a Singaporean who was caught shoplifting got a few years, and I think there was another case where a Singaporean stole from a mosque in Clementi. The amount was much lesser but he got 2 years jail.

Even the Principal Mosque in Singapore, the Sultan Mosque fell victim to thieves.

Why the inconsistency, even if we overlook the FT aspect of the first case? Again we have to look at the circumstances of the case - in the latter cases, the accused both had long criminal records. In the other mosque theft, the accused had just been released from corrective training (CT). And he again committed the crime in a short span upon release. Hence he was given 2 years this time, which was considered light since he had just served CT. In Singapore law, accused persons normally get 1/3 off their sentences for good behaviour, so a person sentenced to 1 year's jail would normally be free after 8 months. Sometimes if they are deemed rehabilitated, they may be even released after 5 or 6 months and spent the next 3 months (up to the 8 month mark) under home detention.

However for habitual offenders, the court can send a person to either CT or PD (preventive detention). For CT the sentences start at 5 years up to 14 years. This is used on offenders who had 3 or more previous serious cases that they were jailed for, or if they are convicted of at least 3 distinct cases (like a serial cheat facing multiple charges) in 1 trial. For PD, offenders must be above 30 years and had at least a CT record, or the other 2 criteria listed above. Sentences begin at 7 years all they way to 20 years. For both CT and PD, there is no remission for good behaviour, they have to serve the full term.

Recalcitrant molester Ong Wee Siong was sentenced to 9 years of Corrective Training plus 18 strokes in 2009.

So a person who had such a long record, even if he's caught merely stealing say a polo T-shirt worth $30 in a store can get say 7 years CT, whereas another person stealing the same shirt might only get 1 week's jail or a fine. All this has to do with your record. Next comes age. Recently an Indian born 'new Singapore citizen'was given probation for growing 2 cannabis plants. Naturally many people were upset at the apparently light sentence meted out. Growing a cannabis plant is similar to trafficking under the law and the minimum sentence starts at 5 years. Why the discrepancy? Because he was still a teenager and this was his first brush with the law. Had he been say 20-21 with 1 or 2 similar cases under his belt he would either get reformative training (minimum 2 years) or the 5 years if charged as an adult.

The Court was not being inconsistent, other youths aged around 18 have also been given probation for various offences. If the acts involve violence against persons, like robbery, they would most likely get reformative training over probation, although it's still possible.

The Subordinate Courts is headed by the Chief District Judge, Tan Siong Thye (a)

The Sub Courts here have a guideline on sentencing and they follow the judgments meted out by their appellate court - the High Court. There's no sentence cast in stone and each case has to be judged on its merits. However they tend to stick close to the guidelines and follow this principle for sentencing - punishment, deterrence and then rehabilitation. However for a youth offender not prone to criminal behaviour and accused of a non-violent crime, the onus shifts to rehabilitation first. For adults, it's punishment first normally then rehabilitation. For serious crimes it's punishment and deterrence.


4) The Court refuses to allow legal access to accused persons detained.

This again is more a half-truth than a myth. Under the law everyone is entitled to claim trial and be defended by a lawyer of his choice. (Obviously for the Internal Security Act and Criminal Act this doesn't apply, but I'm referring to cases in court, I'll touch on those 2 laws may be in part 2).

However only for capital cases will the State provide a lawyer for an accused person free of charge. In other cases you have to engage one yourself or perhaps approach the Legal Aid Bureau. However the Bureau doesn't defend everyone who approaches it, they have their conditions - listed here. Despite it being mandatory that you can appoint a lawyer to defend yourself, the Law here restricts access initially.

The Staff of the Legal Aid Bureau, which is under the auspices of the Ministry of Law.

If arrested you must either be released on bail or charged in court within 48 hours. However sometimes the Police does act sneakily by charging a person with another offence, when the 48 hours is nearly up. Eg: A is arrested on suspicion of extortion. The initial interrogations are not fruitful, but the Police are not yet ready to charge him in court. So what they do, is to release A on bail for the extortion charge - meaning he calls the bailor down and the forms are signed. Technically he is released on bail, however the Police then arrests him on suspicion of consuming drugs, so he faces a fresh charge valid for another 48 hours. That said, this I believe has been rarely used these days, but was kinda prevalent in the 60, 70s and 80s.

During all this time when A was arrested, the Police is not obliged under law to let him contact a lawyer or have the lawyer present during investigations. At this stage the Court is not yet involved. Say when the 48 hours is up, A is now charged in court, the Police via the Prosecution can seek to have A remanded for an 8 day stretch for further investigations. If A's family had engaged a lawyer. the lawyer can oppose this application, but it's rarely acceded to. During the 8 day remand period, the police will try and interrogate the accused. If still they are not finished, say A is involved in multiple cases, the Prosecution can seek a further period of remand. A's lawyer will not be granted any access during this interrogations/investigations. However he can ask the Court for access to speak to his accused privately. This is usually acceded to, but he has to liaise with the Police for this meeting.

Queenstown Remand Prison used to house all accused awaiting trial who either couldn't afford or wasn't granted bail. Following its closure, the Changi Prison Complex houses both those awaiting trial and serving sentences.

Since the Law here doesn't make it necessary for counsel to be present during investigations, few lawyers bother with this request which is usually denied until the police has finished with investigations. The accused is reproduced in court, and he may be granted bail for most cases except for non-bailable ones (capital charges) or if he has previously absconded from bail. If he can afford bail he will be released, if not he's remanded at Changi Prison Complex. His lawyers now have free access to visit him to be briefed on the case and prepare his defense.

So the Court does not actually deny legal access, it only delays it because the law does not explicitly say it must do so immediately.

5) An accuse can escape punishment if the Court makes a mistake.

To wrap up Part 1, I will end with what is definitely 'the most famous myth' that keeps getting passed on with each generation. Singapore as we know, provides for capital punishment by way hanging a person. The procedure involves tying a rope around his neck and measuring the length needed for his weight. He is brought to the gallows and the procedure is completed when the trap door below him opens and he dies due to the rope snapping around his neck and breaking it.

Only the High Court or the Court of Appeal can order a death sentence by way of hanging for 1 of the possible capital charges he's convicted of. The myth is 'that a long time ago, a murderer was convicted of the said capital charge and the Judge in sentencing him, merely said 'he shall be hanged by the neck'. The Judge did not say 'hanged by the neck until he is dead'. Fast forward to his day of execution, either he or his lawyers pointed out the Judge's remarks at sentencing, thus meaning the accused only could be hung by the neck and not suffer death. As such he duly cheated the "hangman's noose'.

'Once a Jolly Hangman' - Darshan Singh was Singapore's principal executioner until his retirement in the last decade.

This is definitely a myth for a number of reasons. Firstly the High Court Judge passing the sentence does not sign the death warrant. He merely signs the order he made and it's delivered to the Superintendent of the Prison. He could have simply worded it - sentenced to death, that's all that matters. But let's play along, he signed it 'sentenced to hang.' But is this the end of the road legally? No, the accused automatically has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (CoA), which could either confirm the death sentence, vary it or dismiss the charge. Any mistake made by the 1st Judge can be rectified by the CoA. And then comes the clemency petition to the President (or Governor/Yang di Pertuan Negara if we are talking pre-1965). The Head of State can pardon him or reject the clemency (on the advice of the Cabinet). Once the clemency is rejected, it's only a question of when he will be hanged. Once a date is chosen, it's the Head of State who must sign the specific order or death warrant directing the Supt to carry out the procedure. So it's highly impossible for such a myth to have credence given the levels of procedure it must pass through.

Lastly and most importantly, there's a specific provision in our Laws, relating to the manner of sentencing. The Court must deliver its sentence in writing not just orally. Specifically Section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a court can rectify any clerical error at any time. For any other error relating to its powers, it can rectify a mistake within 24 hours of the judgment. Thereafter it can only be rectified by an appeal. Eg: The court sentences A accused of armed robbery to 4 years jail but failed to impose the mandatory caning that goes with it, it can correct itself within 24hours. A court sentences B convicted of molest to 18 months jail and 3 strokes of the cane, However B is above 50 years and cannot be caned under law. The court can correct this error, if it fails to do so, then the appellate court will rectify it.

In the past the UK had capital punishment, and from which our such laws descend from (UK and India). When a High Court Judge in the UK was about to prescribe the death sentence, he would place 'a black cloth' atop his wig.

But this myth has nothing to do with the 24 hour grace period. It relates to a clerical error (if at all) of the judge supposedly failing to mention the word 'death' after sentencing the person to hang. This is a clerical error which can be corrected at any time. If he did not say it in court, he would reflect it writing - and there's a specific form to be filled - order of the court to the Supt detailing the sentence of death. Furthermore Section 316 specifically states where a death sentence is passed, it must state specifically that the prisoner will be hanged by neck until he is dead. (This is to certify no other form of capital punishment can be imposed).


So there you have it, the first 5 myths relating to legal issues in Singapore. I hope this has enlightened the readers who follow my blog. I'll probably do the other 5 next week. Until then.....

Singapore witnessed its 1st major street riot this century, not seen on the streets since perhaps the late 1960s, with close to 400 foreign workers running rampage in Little India:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/fire--rioting-taking-place-in-little-india--reports-152651999.html

The riots were sparked by a fatal accident involving a private bus and a foreign worker believed to be a Bangladeshi. As emergency rescue personnel from the SCDF and Police attended the scene and tried to extricate the deceased, a large crowd turned their anger from the driver to these officers.

Rioters hurl rocks, while a police car is overturned. It was later torched.

Projectiles were hurled at the ambulance staff and the traffic police officers, while the bus was smashed. Reinforcements were summoned but they too became the targets. In a stunning scene not witnessed by Singaporeans since the 1960s, 5 police cars were damaged, 2 were torched including the ambulance. 18 emergency personnel including 10 policemen and 4 SCDF personnel had to be conveyed to hospital after sustaining injuries from the fracas.

Not a scene from downtown Cairo or Bangkok, but in Singapore. A scene reminiscent of the 1960s rioting.

The Gurkha Contigent and the Special Operations Command riot control staff had to be activated and they finally restored control around 90 minutes after the incident first started. 27 arrests were made, but not before several private cars were damaged and probably private property too. Race Course Road, where the accident and riot occurred, resembled a street in downtown Bangkok (with the on-going anti-Govt protests) or Cairo during the overthrow of Presidents Mubarak and Mursi, rather than a street in hitherto peaceful Singapore.

DPM Teo and 2nd Minister Iswaran chair the news conference. CP Ng seems to be cowering in the corner as his bosses take the heat for him.

The Minister responsible for the Police - DPM Teo Chee Hean had a press conference shortly thereafter together with his No 2, S Iswaran, Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee and his deputy, Rajakumar. He remarked that it was a serious incident with damage to property and injuries and as expected, promised that the police would spare no effort to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

The damage to the ambulance and the attack on its personnel was totally unjustified. These were the officers trying to assist the deceased.

I find no reason to disagree or doubt him in regards to this matter. This was an appalling act. Even if it was a fatal accident, we cannot allow a 'lynch mob' to exact 'street justice'. There is a specific law and adequate resources by the State to handle these kind of cases. The attacks especially on SCDF staff simply trying to do their job, which is firstly to try and rescue the victim, failing which (owing to his passing) to try and extricate his pinned body, is abhorrent, uncalled for and unjustified. Neither can the attacks on the Police officers who were simply trying to do their job in a fair manner be condoned. The destruction of 5 patrol cars (2 beyond hope of repair) and the ambulance is downright disturbing, depriving citizens the use of these emergency vehicles. The needless destruction of the private cars and property, which had no connection to the accident, the police or the SCDF was a wanton act. The bottom-line has to be a condemnation of these destructive acts and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims of this crime, the emergency personnel who were simply trying to do their job.

Burnt to a crisp - the 2 patrol cars that were in flames are doused by fire-fighters.

However as with any major incident, hard questions must be asked to ensure that a repeat either does not occur, or at the very least, the possibility of it reoccurring is kept to the absolute minimum. As this is a 'law and order issue' inevitably the questions must be at the door of the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and its chief, the Commissioner. Even so before we express our outrage and anger at the rioters and question the police, we should also not over dramatise the situation, to regard every foreign worker that goes to Little India as a dangerous criminal or treat them with contempt. 400 rioters may seem a large figure but compared to the thousands that work here and visit Little India on their Sunday off-day, it's a just a tiny fraction. Most of them are odd job labourers with little education, who work long hours for little pay. We should not begrudge them their right to congregate as they have done years on end without incident. Let not the actions of a tiny few tarnish the general good behaviour and observance of our laws by the overwhelming majority.

Riot police from the Special Operations Command keeping an eye on the ensuing carnage.

And so the question must then go to the Police. We should not fault the first responders, who were simply doing their job as they would in any accident scene, not their reinforcements who responded to their colleagues urgent calls as the situation went south rapidly. In fact we can also praise these officers, for demonstrating a high level of calm and not making the situation worse by responding with a brutal show of force. No shots were fired, even though police officers were injured. No rioters were brutally beaten or killed. The responding officers deserve praise for a high level of tolerance at the expense of their own safety and well-being. We should also not fault the Police for declaring that they will pour resources into identifying and prosecuting those that took part in the riot. Let their investigations continue unimpeded.

However I do also believe a separate inquiry must be initiated by either the Ministry or the Commissioner as to why the situation deteriorated so rapidly, why it was allowed to fester and what can be done in future to ensure a swifter response with lesser causalities. Foreign workers gathering in Little India on Sundays and public holidays are a common sight, the question to be asked is how well prepared were the police in handling and monitoring these crowds? I remember in the past a mini-command post was erected to monitor the situation, is it still being maintained? There were a lot of patrols done by both uniformed and civilian officers, are they still being done, and if so, by how many men?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Lu Yeow Lim is the top dog at Tanglin Police Station. He served as Deputy Commander previously and had stints at the Operations Department as Asst Director Licensing and  AD Policy and Development. But it still appears he hasn't come to grips to overseeing policy, planning and supervision of his men and an understanding of the ground.

I believe the Police management have taken their 'eye of the ball' on this issue. Instead of many uniformed police officers, instead now I see 'Security personnel' who are obviously not police officers making the rounds accompanied by Cisco officers. They seem content to ignore the crowds and instead seem focussed on 'summoning vehicles parked illegally'. The accident took place at Hampshire Road X Race Course Road, barely a kilometre away from Tanglin Police Station on Kg Java Road. Yet every Sunday, scores of private busses are allowed to parked along Hampshire Road effectively blocking the road and making it impassable to all other traffic. Being a narrow road with busses, some park abreast of each other, manoeuvring these big vehicles becomes a hazardous exercise especially when you add the mix of hundreds maybe thousands of workers crossing the very same roads. In fact you can conclude in some ways, it was a miracle that no fatal accident occurred in the past given how narrow Hampshire and Race Course Roads are. This was an accident waiting to happen. Where is the Traffic Police (TP) in regards to this issue? TP has used the excuse that it has to give the illegal parking enforcement to the LTA, in order to free up their officers for more urgent tasks. Why were they not deployed to direct and control traffic? They tend to outsource this to Cisco now, but how well trained are these Cisco officers, and what level of supervision does TP maintain in regards to them? Are TP actually aware of the situation on the ground at Little India?

Brilliant idea for the management of a private building on Sundays to have a sign forbidding foreign workers from crowding on their premises. Where does DAC Lim and CP Ng propose they go to then when it rains?

I doubt so, last night I was actually driving in Little India at around 8pm or so. Serangoon Road, a 4 lane road was reduced to 2 , sometimes just 1 and a half-lane of passable traffic. Crowds were spilling on the left and right most lanes. Furthermore it was raining all day and night, and scores of people simply crossed the road at all points even with moving traffic. It was accident waiting to happen and it did. It's not the first time, that it has rained on a Sunday like this, furthermore it's common behaviour by pedestrians to be more interested in avoiding getting wet and dashing across roads rather than considering the safety aspect. Surely TP isn't blind to this? Why didn't they direct extra resources to monitor the road safety aspect in Little India on a day like this? Where is the supervision and direction by the TP Commander and his head, the CP?

Foreign workers 'camp' in a field at Farrer Park, when it rains they obviously have to move into the shophouses along Race Course Road and thus spill-over onto the road.

Next we have to look at the Tanglin Commander, whose station was within walking distance of the incident. How well versed is he on the situation on the ground? What is the senior management doing? Do they actually bother to walk the ground and access the situation and give direction to the junior officers on the beat? Does the Commander know how bad the situation is on rainy Sundays in Little India? With their usual 'picnic' spots on the fields surrounding Farrer Park becoming unavailable because of the rain, obviously the crowds would spill into the sidewalks and the shophouses, flats and streets. Does he or his senior management have any plan to deal with them? Judging from today's incident, I think the answer is obvious.

SOC officers patrolling 'an extremely busy Boat Quay' in the early night-time of a weekday. For the 'less busy period of 2 to 4 am on Friday and Saturday nights', when the clubs close, these officers obviously will not be needed. 

Next we must look at the SOC who are the primary anti-riot arm of the SPF. Why aren't the SOC regularly deployed during events where a large crowd gathers? Instead you find them patrolling the streets on 'less busy weekdays'. Spotting their ubiquitous 'red busses' parked along Orchard Boulevard, South Beach Road, Clarke Quay, even Little India, and their men walking the streets with guns totting, is a common sight. Unfortunately it appears they only do so on weekdays. On weekend nights after midnight when the crowds spill out on their way home, especially Fridays and Saturdays, you do not see them. Neither do you see them in Little India on rainy Sundays, or normal Sundays for that matter. Are we employing 'fair-weather' riot policemen? What is the point of deploying them on weekdays when you do not use them when their presence can be the best deterrent to violence? Had they been deployed in and around Little India, the riot could have been put down far quicker than it took, with staff injured and widespread damage to property. Maybe if they were thereabouts, the full riot might never have gotten off the ground. This represents a failure of planning by the Commander and his management team.

Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee posing with NPCC cadets from Xin Min Sec. Heading the NPCC might seem a task more suited to CP Ng than the SPF.

Finally the question must also be asked of the CP. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ng Joo Hee is too junior to be Commissioner. He is an accident waiting to happen. Today he again 'got out of jail', because his boss the Minister answered for him. But clearly he lacks the vision and foresight to lead his team of senior officers. Instead of being a proactive force, that assesses and finds solutions to problems before they might occur, the SPF is now a 'reactionary force' that only pledges to do things after something has gone wrong. Senior Officers are far too junior in age or experience to be given important positions like Commanding Officers. In a desperate attempt to promote graduates and scholars in key positions in the hope of retaining their loyalty and service, CP Ng has failed to ensure that they have a keen understanding of the positions they hold and to have adequate levels of supervision in key areas. Instead there seems to be a policy of relying heavily on technology and pushing mundane tasks to non-active or fully equipped organisations like Cisco or LTA. What CP Ng has failed to realise that 'boots on the ground' and understanding of how ground officers perform their tasks and identify potential situations, is just as, if not more important. What's the use of technology, if it cannot help prevent crime and only serve as an investigative tool?

CP Ng, his Commanders SOC and Tanglin Division were on high alert to snuff out any anti-Govt protest on November 5th after hacker 'The Messiah' urged Singaporeans to congregate. But the small matter of tens of thousands of foreign workers gathering on a rainy Sunday in crowded Little India was no cause for concern.

And his Commanders seem more keen to trump up their so called 'achievements' and he more keen to impress his Ministerial bosses, than actually doing their primary duty of supervising their men and understanding what's happening on the ground. Take the November 5th 'supposed Guy Fawkes protest'. Well Commander Tanglin did a superb job didn't he, with the arrests of 3 persons in Orchard Road wearing masks? Not to mention the deployment of extensive police personnel in Orchard Road, and Shenton Way, in preparation for any demonstration! For all these, CP Ng and his Commanders can seem to plan in advance and take every step to prevent things getting out of hand. But for an on-going mass gathering in Little India, with almost 5-10 times more the possible crowd that Hong Lim can accommodate, especially when it rains, this seems to slip his mind!

In closing, the officers on the ground today, the junior officers and the SCDF staff responded remarkably and are worthy of praise. The calm shown and refusal to use lethal or brutal force, is a testament to their level headedness. However as usual, their superiors in the commanding positions and their chief, CP Ng once again, showed themselves incapable of understanding, supervising and to provide the planning required to assist them in their daily duties. As I said with the Kovan murder case, CP Ng should do the honourable thing and resign. How many more missteps and failures of management must Singaporeans undergo while he come to grips with the responsibilities of his office?

As Singapore and its Police Force (SPF) comes to grips with the aftermath of a riot that occurred on its streets (the 1st of its scale since 1969), we must not take our eye off a key issue - the manner in which the SPF is run today. There seems to be a clear remiss in management with regards to modern day policing. About 5 major incidents have come during the watch of Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee's tenure - incidents that have not befallen his predecessors. That is the fact that CP Ng and all his supporters cannot hide from - yes, many of those who support the PAP and some of his officers have not been slow to trump up the restrained manner in which the police dealt with the riot, with repeated online posts especially on FB. As expected the state media prefers to play down the mistakes made and focus on the positives only.

Comments praising the Police such as this, have been making the rounds on pro-Govt supporters FB pages.

That said, I also think it's fair to praise the police and SCDF officers who bravely squared up to the incident and tried their best to perform their duties. The 10 policemen and 4 SCDF officers who were injured are heroes. Officers on the ground deserve praise for not resorting to lethal force that has been the norm in many similar incidents worldwide. Some have accused the policemen of cowardice for running away and not using their guns, water cannons or tear gas. I think this is not the time to accuse them of anything like that. It's far better to retreat and take stock, then contain and get reinforcements, as opposed to meeting the baying crowd head on in the initial stage and start using violence to quell violence.

The SPF used a lot of restraint and common sense in responding to the riot, even the feared Gurkhas did not have to display their full prowess. To accuse the SPF officers at the scene of cowardice is simply wrong.

However the fact lies that there are always reasons for certain incidents and the correct approach for any organisation that serves the public is to take a hard look at these reasons, to identify the fault lines and to be better prepared in future. Unfortunately the SPF has appeared slow to handle or even acknowledge these faults. The 5 incidents that occurred under CP Ng's tenure are

1) The arrest of his former CID chief Ng Boon Gay for corruption. Although acquitted of the charges his conduct in the matter and his supervision left much to be desired.

2) The detaining and questioning of Lynn Lee (an independent journalist) in regards to allegations of assault by police officers in the SMRT bus strike. Rather than encourage the public to come forward with any case or report of police misconduct, the heavy handed manner in which they acted discourages such action

3) The arrest of a serving Police officer for the Kovan murders and the lack of supervision of him in the events leading up to the heinous acts.

4) The failure of 2 senior police officers who eventually rose to become Director CPIB to notice and supervise their subordinate Assistant Director who siphoned public funds for his own use.

5) Yesterday's large scale street riot, the first of its kind in over 40 years.

Singapore's longest serving Commissioner was Goh Yong Hong, who bravely faced off with gunmen in the 1960s. His record on the ground is a far cry to the current incumbent's.

If you look at these cases, you realise it didn't happen during the tenures of experienced police chiefs like Tan Teck Khim, Goh Yong Hong or Tee Tua Ba. Rather it all seemed to fester, escalate and then explode during CP Ng's tenure. He cannot run away from these facts, it's a stain on his record. Anywhere else, especially in Western Police Forces, the calls for his dismissal or resignation would have been swift. And you cannot simply dismiss these incidents as 'freaks of nature' or isolated cases that won't happen again.

The victim of the fatal accident (scene shown above) was identified as 33 year old Indian construction worker, Saktivel Kumaravelu. (ST photo)

But before I elaborate, I think I should also clarify a point I made in my previous post about the riot - that the victim of the fatal accident was a Bangladeshi worker. This is not the case, the deceased was in fact an Indian foreign worker, and the Bangladeshi High Commissioner reiterated this point. This was also confirmed by the SPF who issued this update today. Of the 27 arrests made thus far, 25 were Indian nationals including a Permanent Resident. (His PR should be revoked).

The bulk of those arrested were Indian nationals, not Banglas as many initially believed.

As elaborated in my previous post, this riot was an incident waiting to happen owing to the failures of the senior management in the SPF, notably the Commanders of the Special Operations Command and Tanglin Division, and the failure to supervise them by their boss - CP Ng. And I cannot be accused of having 'an axe to grind' by my repeated calls for the dismissal of CP Ng in previous posts like these2. In fact today, you have the Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew and others declaring that the Govt would look into the situation at Little India on Sundays and have clear zones of demarcation for foreign workers to congregate safely whilst not posing a danger to the public. Even CP Ng conceded in his press conference that the Police will now look into crowd control at Little India and have better monitoring.

A street riot in Gujarat India. Notice the eerie similarities with yesterday's. It's therefore inexcusable the SPF top brass had no plan in place, given the huge crowds that gather at Little India. 

Therefore  can conclude by their admissions that a serious breach or breakdown of management occurred that led to the riot as mentioned previously. Anyway for all the possible reasons given as to why the riot occurred, the actual answer is painfully obvious to anyone with an understanding of Indian culture back home. In India, owing to its huge population woes, fatal accidents are a common sight especially when people simply disregard traffic laws and walk/dash across roads even with moving traffic. It's as if they expect motorists to stop in their tracks to allow them to jaywalk. And if a fatal accident does occur, the most common result is a 'lynch mob' that would surround the vehicle and exact street justice. This frequently gets out of control and attending police officers have to respond using sticks and batons to disperse these hooligans. What happened yesterday is a situation that many Indians will attest to back home. What is shocking therefore is that the Police Management simply chose to ignore the warning signs.

Transport Minister and MP overseeing Little India, Lui Tuck Yew interviews residents. He belatedly declared that new measures will be put in place for the safety of the workers and residents.

That it took so many years of massing foreign workers before an incident of this nature is surprising, not the riot that happened. It may come as a shock to law-abiding Singaporeans but surely the same cannot be said for our top police officers? In fact there is already another potential repeat on the cards in a different part of Singapore - Clarke Quay in the wee hours of Friday and Saturday mornings. Anyone who frequents this place, knows how the whole stretch of traffic is reduced to a standstill when the clubs close and revellers attempt to hail a taxi. The situation gets decidedly worse when it rains heavily. People dashing across the road, many of whom are intoxicated and not to mention fraying tempers. Given the deadly mix of alcohol and large crowds, it's more a question of when not if, that another serious accident will occur and the situation turns south as it did yesterday. In fact minor fights or smaller scale riots do break out there, imagine if motorist knocks down a Englishman? I'm not trying to be xenophobic or having a stereo-typed mind-set, but ask any taxi driver, which foreigner behaves the most boorishly and you'll find most would say it's the English. So imagine if an Englishman is hit fatally and his mates respond aggressively, followed by the intervention of Singaporeans youths unable to tolerate the beating dished out by them to the motorist. What is the end result? Yes, another full scaled street riot. This whole scenario is not some figment of my imagination but a very real possibility. You hardly see TP officers marshalling traffic, in fact even ambulances have to negotiate the congested stretch in order to respond to any emergency. You don't see police cars lining the streets in a show of force and acting as a deterrent unless an incident occurs.

Bemedalled but bedevilled! CP Ng Joo Hee (l) with his immediate predecessor, Khoo Boon Hui.

If I can conjure up this very realistic possibility, the question begets, why can't the senior police management do likewise? The answer is as crystal as night follows day - there is a 'root and branch management remiss' within the top echelons of the SPF leading all the way up to CP Ng. In order to rectify this (although it appears very likely that nothing will get CP Ng to do the decent thing and resign), I propose a hard look and corresponding action within the organisation itself and recommend the following points:

a) An independent body to investigate serious lapses and incidents that occur, such as the 5 incidents mentioned earlier. This body should also look into serious public allegations of misconduct by police officers, like the alleged assault reported by Lynn Lee. Relying on the SPF to investigate themselves seems futile when its head honcho does not want to take responsibility and instead only praises his officers all the time.

The top hierarchy of the SPF. Needless to say, it's filled by numerous scholars and graduates with little understanding of crime, instead they prefer to rely on technology and 'paper thesis' to deal with command issues, as opposed to getting 'down and dirty'.

b) A stop to accelerated promotions to senior positions like Commanding Officers for scholars and graduates whose only claim to the positions are 'their sterling educational qualifications'. We see far too many 20 or 30 something year olds holding high ranks as Deputy Superintendent, Supt, DAC or AC (Asst Commissioner). Although it's claimed these officers have nearly a decade or more of service, the reality is that many join as scholars just after college or NS, they then go on to study on these scholarships, whilst these absent years studying is counted as years of service itself. After graduating from the academy, they spend barely a year in land divisions before being handed positions in Police HQ as staff officers. Thereafter after accelerated promotions, they reach the higher ranks and take charge of the land divisions itself. However their understanding of the 'ins and outs of on the ground policing' is limited to what they have read or planned on paper. The SPF is not OCBC or UOB bank. Blue collar crime occurs on the streets and have a tendency to occur in hot zones like Little India, Geylang or Clarke Quay. A Commander or his peers can never fully understand the situation on the ground, if they have never been on the ground. Promotions should be gradual and reflect the proper experience and execution of duties. If this means graduates and scholars would give the SPF a miss, so be it. It's better to have committed and dedicated officers in for the long haul and for the betterment of society not their own. Any gap can be filled by promoting experienced junior officers to the highest ranks as is the case with many police forces worldwide.

c) Far greater interaction and performance of duty on the ground by senior officers alongside their junior counterparts. In the past a police station probably had only 4 gazetted officers (ASP and above) and maybe another 5-10 Inspectors, who had to lead investigation teams, perform administrative tasks and lead NPPs. Now alone there is more than 100 Supts in the SPF, and senior officers in divisions are a common sight - everyone seems to get promoted if they possess a degree. There is no excuse for senior officers not being able to go on the ground and understand the nuances of the areas under their control. They should observe how their junior officers deal with incidents first-hand and provide leadership support and guidance to them. They should be able to identify potential problems in the making like the worsening traffic situation in Little India before it happens, instead of just being able to react to it.

A Cisco Officer on traffic control duty during the 2010 YOG. With TP delegating so many tasks to them and LTA, it's inexcusable for their failure to manage the weekly traffic chaos that befalls Little India.

d) A careful balance between the use of technology and real on the ground policing. You can have the best laser guns, the best forensic tools and cctvs, but nothing prevents crime more than the presence of a police officer on the ground. I remember a long time back, an old police constable telling me, that he prevents crime every time he parks to a side and takes a short break. I was shocked at his comment but when he explained, it had a ring of truth to it. The very fact he stops at a location, in person or in his car, he immediately acts as a deterrent to any would be criminal. And the same must not be forgotten by the top management. There's a lot of difference between 'hired security guards and Cisco officers' patrolling and doing crowd control as opposed to a trained police officer's presence. Security personnel prefer to handle softer targets like illegal parking than actually confront and warn people. They lack the authority in Law. The same goes for Cisco officers many of whom are Malaysians, who do not understand the 'situation on the ground' that a Singaporean would be familiar with. They themselves are hesitant to act preferring to let their regular counterparts take the lead.

Chan Chun Sing was Army Chief before being switching careers and getting a promotion as Minister. Needless to say, the PAP would have never chosen him if he wasn't a 'diehard and a blowhard.'

e) A proper separation of powers and execution of their duty to the public and the Govt they serve under. This unfortunately will take a long time to shake off, because the PAP has been in power far too long, that civil servants and uniformed personnel in particular, associate the PAP as a party, with the Govt of the day. It's true that the SPF and the SAF must be loyal to the Govt of the day and ensure they obey legitimate orders in regards to policy direction and execution. But they must also maintain a clear distinction between that role and their primary duty - to serve the people of Singapore irrespective of where their political loyalties may lie. Take current Minister Chan Chun Sing and the many former army and police top brass that occupy or have occupied senior Ministerial positions. Lui Tuck Yew, DPM Teo, Heng Swee Kiat to name a few. Minister Chan in his address at the PAP convention has declared the PAP must take the battle to combat online 'dissent' to the next level and not concede ground. In fact almost all his statements since joining the PAP after leaving his Chief of Army position has been decidedly pro-PAP. It didn't happen overnight that's for sure, he was already very 'in tuned' with the PAP platform when he was Army Chief. Nothing wrong with that but the dangers must not be dismissed. What would have happened if the PAP had lost power or be in danger of losing power when he was Army Chief? Would his loyalty to them be unquestioned? Would he act on any order given by them to ensure their continued reign even over the democratic process? Would he be loyal and take orders from an alternative party that came to power and directed him to act against his former bosses, if they felt the legal right to do as such?

Deputy Commissioner T Rajakumar would have made a better choice as Commissioner given his experience and numerous postings.

 Promoting someone as young and inexperienced as CP Ng, would also seem to suggest that he is in a way obligated to the PAP top brass for ensuring his accelerated promotions. A conflict of interest may arise if he has to deal with issues relating to the opposition. Would he be quick to investigate potential wrongdoings by a PAP MP as he would with an opposition one? Will he ignore requests for permits by them while not objecting to those from the Govt?  Times are changing and the opposition appears to be gaining strength in Singapore. Although I still doubt they will wrest power in the next elections, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will increase their numbers in Parliament. With a more evenly divided House, there's always the likelihood that the PAP Govt would use their powers and instruments of state to deny and deprive the Opposition the chance to voice or raise certain issues. Access to data and potential investigations or requests can be denied them by the Govt, and as such you might see a greater outpouring of grievances by the Opposition or their supporters. How will the SPF respond to this, if there remains a conflict of interest with the senior management hugely aligned to the ruling party?

Nice slogans and declarations of loyalty and values. But will the SPF show the same loyalty and values to an alternative Govt or to the increasing number of Opposition MPs?


This issue needs addressing right now, not when it presents itself 3, 5 or 8 years time. The SPF must take a hard look at itself and decide where it would stand in such situations. They must not have blind obedience to the Govt, if orders given to them would be prejudicial to the people of Singapore as a whole. The SPF must be able to act independently without Govt interference when upholding the law or investigating matters. Here's where the President must play a crucial role. He must learn to stop rubber-stamping Govt nominations to key positions in the SPF or Army. He must ensure that the correct candidate with the corresponding qualifications, sense of ideals and loyalty to the nation as a whole is appointed, not a nominee who's beholden to Govt for his promotion.

In closing, a series of missteps and missed opportunities resulted in yesterday's riot. It could have and should have been prevented if the SPF had acted on it earlier. And the same goes with the previous serious lapses. Unless there is a 'root and branch change' in the management style of the SPF, incidents like these will not be the exception, but the norm. And yes, CP Ng should still do the right thing and send his resignation to the President.

Just a quick update: The Prime Minister has ordered a Commission of Inquiry to look into the incident. The scope of the Inquiry will look into some of the issues I raised in my 2 posts on the matter - what factors led to the incident, how it was managed on the ground and how to handle large crowds in Little India and elsewhere. I hope they will also look at the operating procedures of the TP, SOC and Tanglin Division and identify the failures of management that I pointed out. I am further hopeful that its report will deliver a stinging rebuke to CP Ng and his leadership of the SPF and recommend his removal. Finally in the points a - e above, I hope some concrete measures are taken to correct/implement them.

Lastly - the SPF has now clarified that the deceased was actually a passenger on the bus, not a passer-by. He was ordered off after unruly behaviour due to drinking. After he disembarked, the bus attempted to make a left turn, unfortunately he had stood at the turning point, most probably to try and re-board the bus and as such was struck and pinned under the bus. The driver did not notice him, probably due to the large vehicle he was driving and the large number of people congregating in the vicinity. He has since been arrested for committing a reckless act that resulted in death.

With all the focus in Singapore these past few days on the Little India riot, let us not forget that a major world incident happened just last week. December 5th - saw the passing of former South African President and Nobel Laureate, Nelson R Mandela. Mandela aged 95, died of lung infection in his Soweto home last Thursday at 8.50pm local time. A 4 hour memorial service was held today (December 10th) and he will have a state funeral on Sunday, December 15th.

Nelson Mandela salutes supporters and well-wishers on his day of release from prison in 1990.

I needn't go into his life-story and achievements. It's so well known and documented, not to mention you can catch features on his life and struggles on NatGeo, History and Discovery channels. I believe our local stations, MediaCorp and Channel News Asia have also lined up programmes depicting his life. All major news networks are showing the mourning, grief, his lying in state, today's memorial service, as well as the accolades and well wishes by almost all Heads of State and Govt.

Long time enemies and rivals, yet Mandela's memorial service saw US President Obama shaking hands with Cuban President Castro.

It's not even his funeral but nearly 90 Heads of State and Govt attended today's service, together with high ranking representatives of other nations and former world leaders. Singapore was represented today by DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam. You know what a great man he must have been when the attendees include 4 US, 5 Brazilian and 2 French Presidents, 2 Canadian Governor Generals, 4 British and 3 Canadian Prime Ministers and 2 UN Sec-Gens. Even Cuban and Palestinian Presidents - Raul Castro and Mahmoud Abbas attended, not to mention celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Anderson Cooper, 2 Spice Girls and Bill Gates. Only a person of Mandela's stature could bring all this people together.

President Mandela cracks a joke that has then PM Goh Chok Tong's wife in stitches. He visited Singapore in February 1997. (ST Photo)

I think it fair to say that in the last century, the greatest man of the first half was Mahatma Gandhi and for the second, it was Nelson Mandela. Both preached peace and reconciliation rather than revenge when they had the means of power. Neither were concerned about power, but the betterment of their people's lives and a right to freedom and democracy. Nelson Mandela even visited Singapore in 1997, during his term as President. Singaporeans like others, were won over by his candour and humility.  He was and remains a symbol of honesty, virtue, self-sacrifice and peace. These are values that Singapore can identify with. It's for these reasons that I hope the Govt would consider giving Mandela 1 final accolade and recognition for his contribution to world peace, by lowering our National Flag to half-mast on Sunday, December 15th, the day of his funeral.

Then President Mandela rides with Queen Elizabeth II in an open carriage whilst on a State Visit to the UK. These are the only 2 foreigners I think, thus far that deserve an official act of mourning by Singapore.

Normally I wouldn't even fathom the thought of lowering the flag for a foreigner, save Queen Elizabeth II (she was after all our Queen and Head of State for 11 years - 1952-1963). But Mandela was not a normal guy, he was truly special. And we won't be the only country or major world body doing it. The following have done so:

1) USA (4 days of official mourning)
2) India (5 days)
3) Serbia (1 day)
4) UK (3 days)
5) Monaco (1 day)
6) Antigua (1 week)
7) New Zealand (2 days)
8) Belize (1 day)
9) Cuba (2 days)
10) France (1 day)
11) Maldives (1 day)
12) Jamaica (5 days)
13) Australia (Today, PM Abbott was criticised for not doing it earlier)
14) Ireland (1 day)
15) Trinidad & Tobago (1 day)
16) Canada (December 15th)
17) The European Union
18) FIFA
19) The UN
20) The International Olympic Committee

And dozens of other countries especially those in the African continent. So why not us as well? We have obviously done it for former Presidents Ishak, Sheares, Nair, Ong and Wee, as well as former Ministers, Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee. But it will be a first for someone not connected directly with Singapore. However the values he fought for are universal as seen by the actions of other countries across the globe, with similar lack of direct connectivity to Mandela. This should also not become a political issue. No points to be gained by the Govt or criticism for doing it by the Opposition. Just a simple but moving gesture to honour one of the finest men of the last and new centuries.

The Union Jack and South African Flag flying at half-mast atop the Downing Street offices of the Prime Minister.

Should our Govt do so? What do you think? I think they should and hope they do so. Whatever it is, I think we can all agree that Mandela was a great man and he is in our hearts and prayers. Even though we are just ordinary people, even our private messages of condolences online is a gesture he would definitely appreciate because he always believed in the ordinary simple man. RIP Madiba.

The Govt and the Police (SPF) have come out with a slew of measures since the shocking riot at Race Course Road on December 8th. Some can be said to be knee-jerk like the blanket ban on alcohol sales and consumption, others more timely like stepped up patrols and installation of cameras. Moreover a Commission of Inquiry (COI) has been set up headed by retired Justice G P Selvam and comprising retired CP, Tee Tua Ba, ex NTUC Chairman John de Payva and West Coast CCC member Andrew Chua. Of course there will be sceptics about the composition, but I think having a Judge is correct and also a policeman (retired) has to be included to shed light into the police action. I also believe Mr de Payva's inclusion is to consider the worker's aspect in this case.

Retired High Court Judge, G Pannirselvam will chair the 4 man Commission of Inquiry.

In furtherance to my previous 2 articles, I have some suggestions which I hope both the COI and Police will look into. I was at Race Course Road on Saturday night, and I came away with the feeling that it was the 'safest street in Singapore. Special Operations Command (SOC) riot busses, patrol cars with flashing lights were patrolling the streets, accompanied by uniformed and plainclothes policemen on foot patrol. It does also shore up the general feeling that the SPF is more a reactionary force than a preventive one. That said it's better than doing nothing.

Race Course Road and the surrounding vicinity have been equipped with lots of CCTVs.

However before I list my suggestions, there's 2 aspects that I've found troubling in the aftermath of the riot. The first is the quick rush of support by a large number of pro-PAP supporters for the SPF and to a lesser extent - the SCDF. There was a call to change their Facebook avatars to the logo of the Home Team and even this page:


Of course they are not wrong to thank the officers who were prepared to do their duty in spite of getting injured. We all are sympathetic and wish the 39 officers from the Home Team a speedy recovery and to continue doing their duties undeterred by this sad incident. But what's troubling is their 'blind support' in that any criticism of the SPF is also an attack on the PAP and the Govt. This is a dangerous precedent - the SPF is not part of the PAP in any sense and must never be. Pro-PAP supporters must not relate or link any criticism of the SPF's conduct in the lead up and during the riot as an attack on the PAP. The SPF is a public body that answers to the public it serves. Criticism of the SPF by the public must never be regarded as unjustified or impermissible. It's not the duty of PAP supporters to defend the SPF in the same way they are allowed to defend PAP policy. They are allowed to rubbish any criticism of the PAP, even if it's wrong, because they are supporters of the party. But the Police is not a political party and any criticism of it must not descend into a political matter.

CP Ng Joo Hee, DCP Rajakumar visit the scene together with their bosses - Ministers Iswaran and Teo Chee Hian.

The other troubling aspect with the advent of social media like FB or Twitter, are the numerous posts by members of the SPF and SCDF in total support of their organisations and the rejection of any criticism directed at it. I am not going to provide examples in order to give these officers some privacy but if you've been following this saga on the numerous pages and platforms on FB, you'll easily find officers engaging harshly with netizens who criticised the conduct of officers at the scene. Although this was done in their private capacity, this is also troubling, because officers have sworn an oath to act without favour. This means they have to accept that the public can and must be allowed to criticise their conduct, even if they think this is unfair or unjustified. Phrases like ' if you think you can do a better job or are so smart, why don't you go down and handle the rioters' and so forth should be avoided at all costs. This is should be 1 of the first things Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee should do, to instruct his officers not to get involved in slanging matches with the public over the execution of their duties. Police Officers are deemed by law to be 'on duty' 24 hours a day, so even private remarks can cast a shadow over their commitment to protect and serve the public. We cannot have a culture of police officers who are affected by adverse comments going about doing their daily tasks. Some officers can develop a mindset of mistrust or hatred for the public and treat anyone questioning or criticising them in person in their course of their duties as 'an enemy.'

Although they have a right to consider their safety, policemen hiding in an ambulance and then running away, wasn't taken in a sympathetic light by some Singaporeans, which they were entitled to take.

The public have a right to be aghast at the sight of police officers hiding in an ambulance and then running away. They have a right to be angry when the police refuses permits for peaceful protests and warn of dire consequences but seemed overwhelmed and powerless when a group of foreigners disregarded them and instead attacked them. Whether fair or not, it does create a feeling of resentment that law-abiding Singaporeans are cowed into submission, whilst foreigners can just disregard the law.

That said, there have been a lot of conspiracy theories about the cause of the riot and some remarks by the public have no foundation but based on assumptions and hearsay, even the following one made former presidential candidate, Tan Kin Lian:

Mr Tan had no basis to make this statement based purely on hearsay. It has not been corroborated by any evidence or testimony by someone at the scene, be it from the SPF, the Press or public. 

However there is also truth in some criticisms made by other members of the public that the Police were slow to react or realise the scale of the unfolding incident until it was too late. And they were right to feel disappointed by the very low number of arrests made (33 thus far charged not even 10% of the estimated number of rioters). Not forgetting remarks made by CP Ng, who was quick to praise his officers for not using lethal force but offered no willingness to accept blame for the incident, failure of his management team, the injuries or damage of public and private property estimated to hit close to $1 million. In fact 1 FB reader summed it up perfectly with this line: ' The Police have done a good job in saying that they have done a good job.'

The CP can say the Police did a good a job at elections rallies especially opposition ones, but praising his men in the riot control without acknowledging failures, was too much of a stretch.

As mentioned in my previous2 articles, I firmly believed that the Police management must shoulder a lot of the blame for the way the incident unfolded. Of course the rioters must get blamed and punished first and foremost, but that doesn't mean the Police are blameless either. Had they heeded the warning signs and been more pro-active, most likely a different outcome would have been the result. But lest it be said that I only criticised them, I also offered some scenarios and possible courses of action as well. With the formation of the COI, here are a few more, which I hope they will look into and the SPF to consider and implement where they see fit.

1) The despatching/arrival of the first responding Police Officers

Although I urge people to be slow in criticising them, the COI and SPF must start here. The fatal accident happened around 9.20pm and a call was placed at 9.23pm. Yet the first patrol officers arrived at 9.40pm (together with the ambulance). Now we were not told if the first car despatched was a '999 fast response car' (from Tanglin or 'E' Division) or a Traffic Police (TP) expressway patrol car. If  an 'E Div' car was first despatched that should be the correct course, since they patrol a specific zone like Little India and their ability to respond should be faster, as opposed to a TP car that covers a larger area and would normally take longer to arrive for most incidents.

A damaged TP Volvo Expressway patrol car. Who was initially despatched, them or E Div's patrol car?

If a TP car was first despatched then this would reflect a poor delegation of duties by the 999 operators. Just because it was a traffic accident does not mean that only TP cars should be mobilised. A divisional car should be the first choice since this was in area teeming with thousands of passers-by, and the response must be prompt. Anyway if the E Div car was first mobilised, we also must look at why it took them 17 minutes to arrive. They should have realised the gravity of situation the moment the call came in and used their sirens to ensure a faster response time. This 17 minute delay had caused the crowd to get agitated and unsupervised they began to take matters into their own hands.

2) The preliminary incident scene management by them

In responding to a call like this, the officers should have realised it was going to be a 'messy and emotional scene'. They need to be psychologically prepared and must have a proper and systematic method of dealing with the scene. They need to realise their primary duty upon arriving - to contain and control the crowd and let the SCDF officers deal with the casualty (deceased).

From this photo, it doesn't seem that the area was cordoned off when the first officers arrived, allowing the crowd to come within touching distance.

The 1st thing they should have done is separate the passers-by and crowd from the immediate scene. This would involve erecting a cordon around the scene and ensuring the crowd stays out of it. Did they do this? This is a key question. The next thing would be to call for back-up to help manage the scene. Since this was an Indian (Tamil) crowd, a Tamil Officer should have been summoned to assist (if there was none present)

With an agitated crowd, the next step would be to ask for eye witnesses and identify them. The first persons would be the bus passengers and those who witnessed the accident. This would at least indicate to the crowd they were serious in ensuring justice. They should also use their loudhailers (available in the car) to communicate over the noisy scene.

3) SOP regarding fatal accidents should be modified.

In 'normal' fatal accident scenes, the driver is usually kept at the scene until the arrival of the TP IO (Investigating Officer). The IO and his traffic accident management team will deal with the scene and eventually arrest the driver, while the responding officers provide assistance to secure the body until removed by the under-taker. The TP IO usually takes some time to arrive. With an agitated crowd, the responding officers should have disregarded this SOP, and acted hastily to remove both driver and coordinator who were seen by the crowd as being responsible for the accident. They need not be arrested as yet, but their removal could have been perceived by the crowd that some immediate justice was being done. Both should have been removed to the nearby Tanglin Police Station barely 500 metres away. The first officers could then tell the crowd and witnesses that they were 'arrested; and thus placate them. Don't forget the racial overtones here as well - I believe both were Chinese. Their 'arrest' would indicate to the Indian crowd that no favouritism was being shown.

4) How soon was a Senior Officer at the deteriorating scene?

In this posed photo, a Police ASP is briefing his junior officers. On Dec 8th, how soon was an Inspector or higher there to take charge?

If the responders had realised the gravity and asked for more manpower, the next key question was how soon was a Senior Officer despatched to the scene, to take charge and assess the situation? In incidents involving large crowds the Police management must be situationally aware and get key decision makers to the scene as soon as possible.

5) How soon was SOC alerted and who could make this call?

Riot Police Officers observe the scene. How soon can they be activated and by whom, should be a key point the COI must look into?

I believe Junior Officers (JOs) do not have the authority to activate SOC and this must go through a chain of command. Therefore a Senior Officer (SO) must be present to recommend it or the Duty Officer Radio ( 999 operations) must liaise with the JOs at the scene and then inform either the Director Ops or CP. All this may take time, and the COI and Police must study this procedure and come up with a faster way of activating SOC or the Gurkhas. In a rapidly deteriorating scene, should the formalities of having an SO to make a determination be dispensed with and allow the responding officers to make the call immediately.

Other points to consider are as follows:

6) Having a proper drop-off/pick up point for private busses.

The current policy of blocking Hampshire Road for numerous private busses to stop and wait does not look like a good one. These busses have no right to block a public road merely for the sake of making money. Little India has always been a rendezvous for foreign workers (FW) and they have always found ways to make it there. The trend of private busses ferrying them to and fro is a recent one since the turn of the century.

A street map showing Hampshire, Rutland and Dorset Roads. A possible entry and exit point for private busses on Sundays.

Strictly speaking there's no real need for them to be there for hours on end. Their banning this weekend proves this. The FWs can always use public transport, but if the fear that tens of thousands of them clogging up our already crowded public transport system, then fair enough, these busses can be allowed to operate but under close supervision by the LTA. They should not be allowed to use the narrow Race Course Road to traverse. Instead an alternative pick-up/drop off point away from the masses should be identified. I propose using Rutland Road (next to the Farrer Park Swimming complex). Busses enter from Hampshire Road, turn into Rutland Road - drop and pick up and then exit via Dorset Road.

7) Interviewing and Identifying the primary cause of the riot and any other underlying ones.

Obviously there are some who are quick to point the blame at the Govt for allowing a mass influx of FWs and doing little to help them. The low pay and 'poor' living conditions are the chief reasons they believe that caused this riot. These lowly paid FWs had had enough and decided to lash out. They also rubbish the Govt claims that alcohol played a primary part and mocked the 2 day ban imposed over the weekend. They feel this is a cover-up to hide Govt ineptitude.

Plainclothes policemen detain a rioter. The COI should speak to such persons to find out why they rioted, instead of just listening to the police or reading statements recorded by them.

The poor conditions and low pay make well prove a factor when the COI looks into it. To fully clarify this, the COI must interview witnesses at the scene, fellow Indian and Bangladeshi FWs not involved in the riot and crucially, they must attempt to interview the suspects arrested (even those charged and convicted). They gotta hear it from the 'horses' mouth' and not base it on hearsay or the testimony of police officers only.

But I'm sticking to my own assumption for the cause and feel the COI will most probably find along similar lines. The riot was primarily caused by 'mob anger' similar to what they are used to back home whenever a fatal accident occurs. Alcohol played a part (but surely all 400 couldn't have been intoxicated or consumed alcohol) and being egged on by fellow countrymen and friends, it descended as such. The other related factors include the poor treatment of their fellow countrymen by private bus operators. This is a true fact, if you have witnessed how much contempt these bus drivers and coordinators sometimes treat these workers with. Scolding them and brushing them off rudely.  The indifferent attitude of the driver and coordinator after running over the victim could have also played a part. LTA should be proactive and monitor these drivers and make sure they treat them well and with respect. Those who fail to do so should have their vocational licenses suspended or revoked. This is a lucrative business for them, if not for these FWs, their buses would be idle on Sundays. But here they can charge anywhere from $2-5 for a one way trip. Multiply it by around 40 pax and number trips, each bus can generate quite a good bit of profit. The other related factors were the ones I mentioned about the responding officers actions in Points 1-3.

Foreign construction workers from India and Bangladesh pay huge agent's fees just to be able to work here. With meagre salaries, it takes them a long time to clear their debts.

As for poor living conditions, the PM has said he will direct the relevant ministry to ensure they have proper accommodation. Coming to meagre salaries, yes it's low but much more than what they would earn back home. Most come from rural villages with only 2 months of harvest to survive the whole year on. Although their pay varies from $300 to $500 on average per month and should be raised to reflect the hard menial labour they put in, merely increasing will not solve the real problem - corrupt employers and agents. Some of these workers pay up to $7000 just to be able to work here and spent almost 1 1/2 years clearing that debt. Why so much? Because many corrupt employers tell employment agents that they want a 'cut' from the agent fees. I touched on this practice is this earlier post. If the COI and Govt really wants to help these FWs, they must investigate, warn and prosecute firms that resort to this tactic to enrich themselves. I understand the market rate is anywhere from $1500 - $300 per unskilled FW. Imagine a boss who's allowed to bring in 100 FWs, at $2000 per worker, he makes a huge $200,000 before these workers actually start work.

8) Have SOC troops stationed close-by when large crowds gather

Instead of having SOC troops elsewhere and then have to be activated, the SPF should always ensure they are stationed within touching distance when large crowds gather. 1 or 2 SOC units should be stationed at Tanglin Police Station on Sundays, so that they can respond quickly to any untoward incident. For Clarke and Boat Quays having them stationed at the nearest NPCs would also be wise. I understand it's not possible to always expect them to be on site and patrolling on foot, but having them close by would be the next best thing.

9) Issue warning cards and briefings for all FWs working here.

The US Navy actually briefs its sailors that come ashore here during their visits here. This is to warn them not to break Singapore laws and that the authorities here take a dim view of anti-social acts. Similarly when MOM issues work permits to FWs here, they should have a warning card in their native tongue listing the do's and don'ts. Better still ensure that employers and agents brief them, and make regular visits to dorms to explain our laws. Some FWs may not be fully aware of our laws. They may think it's permissible to strike, to exact street justice or doing crazy stuff in order to plead their plights. A little effort like this might mean a whole lot of difference in keeping them in check and allowing them a trouble free work life here.

US Sailors watch their vessel the USS Freedom. These sailors are briefed before setting foot in Singapore.

So there you have it, my analysis and suggestions that I hope the COI and SPF will look into and give serious thought. I may not have all the answers or be able merely by typing some fancy article to solve and prevent another riot, but at least I'm trying to be of help and offer constructive or reasonable ideas. Talking of preventing the riot, I came across this blog entry by a former police officer from 'E Div'. In the article (see link below), he boldly claims he would have been able to stop the riot had he still been in the Force. So read it with 'a large pinch of salt', although amidst all the bluster, he does raise a few pertinent points which surely must be worth considering by his former employers.

http://gangasudhan.blogspot.sg/2013/12/i-could-have-stopped-riot.html

Following the Little India riot, the Police have basically concluded investigations and released the following description of what the next steps will be:

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/little-india-riot-police-substantially-complete-investigations

Essentially 28 persons have been charged with rioting, 200 were given 'advisories' and 53 were given warnings in lieu of prosecution and will be deported. There is no dispute with the 28 being charged but some have questioned the 'advisories' and the 53 who were deported 'without due' process.

Just because he runs NGOs for the plight of migrant workers here, should not mean Mr Jolovan Wham (a) should take it upon himself to champion the cause of each and every worker under investigation.

Jolovan Wham who runs NGOs for the plight of abused foreign workers, issued the following statement in regards to the matter:

http://workfairsingapore.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/access-to-justice-concerns-for-little-india-riot-accused/

I agree in essence with the 1st part of his statement in relation to reports of assault by some of the 28 accused while in custody by the police. He also expressed concern that the alleged assault took place in an area with no video cameras - the interrogation rooms. This is something I touched on in an earlier post. That the police can install 25 new cameras in the aftermath of the riot but still refuse to have a video camera in the 6 police stations and CID interrogation rooms is plainly inexcusable. A cctv at the very least will lend credence whether the allegations of assault were false. A full video with sound would once and for all determine whether any form of threat, coercion or violence was used in the recording of statements and interrogations.

The IPCC was set up in the UK to investigate allegations of serious abuse by police officers including assaults on accused persons.

I also agree with Mr Wham that an independent body should be empaneled to look into allegations of abuse by the police. In fact the UK has an independent body that looks into allegations made against the Police, there's no reason why we shouldn't have one here. However until such a body is set up we must make do with we have here, and here's where I disagree with Mr Wham. He infers that just because the Judge asked the Prosecution to investigate the allegations, it should be an inference that the Prosecution - ie; the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) would be in collusion with any police officer that carried out the assault. It also follows that the whole SPF would be involved in a cover up, that every officer who as a matter of course investigates these allegations, would look the other way if it was indeed proven.

Does this mean the allegations are totally unfounded? Well honestly, I don't know and we will have to wait for the findings into the allegations. If the medical officers whom these persons were referred to cannot find evidence, that would prove that no serious assault took place. However it won't be able to say for certain, that no minor assault like a slap, a deprivation of sleep or threat took place and so forth. But it does not mean that it did take place either. The best solution would of course be to ensure that all these allegations should be able to be proven one way or the other - with the introduction of cameras in all police dealings with accused persons.

The Legal Service Commission of the AGC, from whose ranks DPPs come from. Would it be fair to assume that all these officers will turn a blind eye to police brutality which could seriously derail the prosecution's case?

But it's unfair to allude that the Prosecution and every police officer including the senior management would be in collusion to cover-up any trace of assault. I've been critical of the police in some of my earlier posts, but I honestly don't think that every police officer who has taken an oath would turn the other way if they found out that such assaults took place. I believe there are enough, if not a lot of good police officers, who would stomach such dastardly acts and not come forward to report it. And I am positive that the DPPs assigned to the case, who are not part of the police in any way (but rather an overseer of police investigations), would not be slow in prosecuting police officers who engage in violence to accused persons.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the US, routinely deports undesirables in lieu of prosecution without reference to a judicial hearing.

Mr Wham was wrong in that inference and he's definitely wrong with the rest of his statement regarding the denial of due process by the 'arbitrary deportation' as he puts it. It's trite international law that every country reserves the right to determine the presence or removal of any foreign national in their respective countries. Any country even those in western democracies have the absolute right to declare any foreigner 'persona non grata' and order their immediate removal or deportation. There's nothing about due process, any country can order such a removal provided that such removal would not mean that a return to a person's country of origin, will result in the torture or threat of injury or death to that person. There's no question that these 53 will be subject to such conditions upon return to India.

Of course, some will deny involvement, some will say the Police forced them to admit - you can take both views here - a) few guilty persons will admit their faults or b) their statements were true. But all that is irrelevant - Singapore has a right to refuse stay or admission of anyone it deems undesirable. The Police would not have acted arbitrarily but in consultation with the AGC. For example, if you're dissatisfied with your foreign worker or maid, can you cancel their work permits? Of course you can. Do you have to give a reason? Yes. Can they seek a court order to force you to change your decision once the Comptroller of Work Permits rules in your favour? Of course not. Once you apply to cancel and the Work Permit Department accedes to your request, their permits are cancelled and they have to leave the country. The Police have done the same thing here, they have provided a reason to the AGC and the Comptroller that these workers are undesirable for their presence during the riots and have requested their removal following the issuance of a warning.

A Prisons' bus leaving with some of the accused charged in court. The 53 not charged would have breathed a sigh of relief they did not suffer the same fate.

Of course, one can have fanciful ideas that the Police simply plucked 53 persons from thin air, declared them involved passively in the riot and then in a cover-up moved to have them removed. No one can stop you from forming whatever view you want, but the key question is whether a reasonable person exercising sound judgment would believe so? That the whole Police Force all the way up to the Commissioner and the AGC - not forgetting the Ministers overseeing the Police and Comptroller, would all be in collusion to have these 53 'innocent persons' removed. That would mean all the statements were false, not just by them, but by witnesses, the video evidence garnered at the scene, all were swept under the carpet to reach this determination. If you stopped to think about this conspiracy theory, then you will realise that the scale of it would be of enormous proportions, involving dozens if not hundreds of people and public servants, all of whom must be in collusion. Is this reasonable? Go figure. And which do you think these 53 would have preferred? Being charged, convicted, jailed and then deported, or just deported with a warning?

The UK riots of 2011, involved thousands of youths across several cities. The various police forces in the country could not catch and prosecute a large number of them even with advances in technology.

It's easy to cast allegations or to make arbitrary statements and to quote lofty terms like due process. But people also must realise the scale of the investigations. There were supposedly 400 people involved. Is it possible to hunt down all 400? Maybe if you watch CSI or other crime shows, yes it's possible, but in real life it doesn't work that way. I can safely say, and maybe the police will dare to admit, that some persons involved in the riot even in an aggressive manner, will somehow escape arrest and prosecution. If they were smart enough to do the act and leave the scene without being spotted by anyone who knew them and left nothing behind that can be traced to them, how would any police force in the world be able to identify them? Of course only 28 face charges, but 253 others were also identified in one way or the other of being present and involved in varying degrees. This is not a bad return. Even if you look at top police forces in the world that have had to deal with riots like the LAPD and Scotland Yard - they too were not able to catch everyone involved in the riots in their cities. They too did not prosecute everyone they interviewed or arrested. The SPF may not have performed well in the lead-up or during the riot - if you take that view (which I do), but they did not perform too badly in the aftermath.

Would it be better to have given these 53 'due process' as Mr Wham wants? It would cost the taxpayers a lot to house them, to prosecute them and then in the end, do the very thing being done - deport them. If there was no solid evidence in the first place to prosecute, how can there be solid evidence in whatever future hearing? What more due process is there to be had, except make a simple determination - do we want to allow these persons to work and remain here, or send them back? If you were in a position of authority, what would your decision be? Would it be to 'flog a dead horse and have further investigative and judicial processes that would almost certainly bring you back to square 1' or would you take the option the AGC, Comptroller and Police took?

The boorish behaviour of this Australian cyclist outside Vivo City and the Caribbean Condominium should not be tolerated and he too should be declared an undesirable and deported.

I would always choose the latter, in fact my only complaint about this deportation process, is that the Police while moving fast here to have these undesirable persons deported, have not been similarly fast to remove other foreigners who have committed crimes or other boorish acts. Whether it be bankers assaulting taxi drivers, bar room brawls by drunken expatriates or even the disgusting behaviour by the Australian cyclist at Vivo City, once a foreigner commits an act unbecoming of our expectations and laws, he or she should similarly become 'persona non grata.' There is no need for further explanations or due process, please remove anyone regardless or nationality or position that does so. That would be the one act that the Police can do to restore greater faith in the deportation process.

I came across this recording sent in by an anonymous reader to The Real Singapore website:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=689963477715489&set=vb.416856241692882&type=3&theater 

Yesterday he sent another letter explaining the circumstances that was also published in the alternative news site. You can read it here.

Obviously he has admitted to hitting his father and something like that is always going to be treated by society at large as an abhorrent act. Needless to say it attracted a lot of negative remarks. However that is another issue altogether. That is matter that is subject to investigation (by the police) and prosecution by the AGC and a determination on what the penalties are by a court of law. There is a set course for this, it wasn't the first issue of this kind and unfortunately won't be the last either, but the Law is fully equipped to deal with the matter. In fact the Law did decide on this matter, he was served with a Personal Protection Order and given a warning by the Police (ostensibly after consultation with the AGC).

A Police Inspector (r) has 2 'pips. It's the most junior of the senior ranks.

What is shocking and extremely troubling is the conduct of senior officer that attended to this incident, presumably on 7th April 2013. He is believed to be an Inspector of Police (Insp) in his 40s. If you listened to the recording carefully, you can hear him using a tirade of foul language repeatedly on the accused assailant. Not only that, he threatens to ruin the accused professionally by giving him a record and further to this, threatens to send him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). He first threatens him with arrest and then in a fit of anger instructs his subordinates to detain him and send him to IMH anyway. The accused was eventually detained and sent to IMH where he was put under 5 days of observation, which he describes as hellish.

Common Assault even the abhorrent act of a man hitting a woman remains a non-seizable offence.

There are several things wrong based on the recordings submitted. Firstly the Insp instead of ascertaining the full facts, decided straightaway to side with the victim of the assault. Police Officers attending cases of disputes and assaults must always maintain their neutrality and ascertain the facts as reported from both parties. Secondly, it's an offence for a member of public to use abusive language on a police officer, thus it must also mean that a police officer must NOT similarly use such language on a member of public. The Law is there to provide protection for officers to perform their duty without needless abuse, the Law does not empower the Police to become abusers.

Here the officer is heard using a tirade of abusive language. Thirdly, Police Officers are only Law enforcers not administrators of justice - that is a duty solely for the Courts. Here the Insp is heard threatening to ruin the accused by 'giving him a record and spoiling his career'. The accused is still only an accused, he had not been convicted - that determination is for a Court to decide. Who gave the Insp the power to decide on giving him a record?

Dr James Gomez, then a WP candidate was reported, briefly detained and later given a warning for 'threatening to report Election Department officials.'

Fourthly we have a case of wrongful determination of Laws empowered to Police Officers. the accused is only alleged to have used common assault (Section 323 of the Penal Code). This is a non seizable offence - it can never become a seizable offence unless Parliament changes the Law. Who gave the Insp the right to determine this was a seizable offence and threaten the accused with arrest based on this assault? Fifthly there is a question of verbal threat (Minor Offences Act) or Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 of the PC) used by the officer to threaten the accused with an arrest he was not legally empowered to effect. If you remember the case involving James Gomez and the Elections Department where he threatened to report officials if they made a mistake with the filing of his papers. What happened there? The ED made a police report and Mr Gomez was given a warning for either verbal threat/criminal intimidation for merely threatening to report the ED officials. Here we have a senior Police Officer issuing a threat of arrest for an offence he was not legally empowered to arrest. Why shouldn't this officer be taken to task if Mr Gomez could?

The Mental Health Act empowers Police Officers to detain persons suspected of behaving with some kind of mental disorder like this woman who removed the 'kinetic rain exhibits' at Changi Airport. I don't think it allows Police Officers to detain persons accused of assault under the Act.

Finally, we have the arrest itself - ostensibly for an offence under the Mental Health Act. The Insp merely instructed his officers to detain the man and then left the scene. I strongly believe after returning to Central Station he realised that he was not legally empowered to detain him for assault and thus arrested him for being of an unsound mind - ostensibly for hitting a parent. The accused was referred to IMH and had to spend 5 days there. Did the accuse have a record of insanity? Did the accuse behave abnormally at the scene? I don't think so, if you listened to the recording, he was very quiet and apologetic. Is this the actions of an insane man? We could very well have a case of 'wrongful arrest' by the Insp, using another Act which provides arresting powers for an offence that does not. If anyone behaved like a madman, it was the Insp who was heard shouting at the top of his voice in a public place when there was no need for it.

The conduct of the accused deserves condemnation, and granted we can accept that Police Officers are human too, but surely we cannot allow Police Officers to behave in such a fashion and ignore the very laws that they are supposed to uphold? Moreover this was not a rookie junior officer but a senior officer with years of experience. If he can behave is such a fashion what does that reflect or show his subordinates? It's ok to abuse accused persons, it's ok to use vulgarities and shout in public, it's also ok to ignore or bypass the law and arrest a person you're not legally empowered to by using the powers conferred by another provision in a different Act?

Some Judges of the Subordinate Courts - they alone determine the guilt of accused persons, not police officers attending cases.

Police Officers are not judges, they are not there to determine the accused guilt. They are there to determine the facts and assist in the investigation. Even for prosecution, that is not their domain, that is for a legally trained law officer to decide if the evidence adduced is sufficient to warrant prosecution or in the public interest to do so. If an accused resists arrest, they are empowered to use force, but in this case where the accused offered no resistance, the job of the officers is merely to ascertain the facts, ensure the safety of parties involved and ensure no further breach of the peace. There is no reason whatsoever to abuse the accused or humiliate him, there is no reason to get personally involved in a domestic matter that does not involve the SPF. There's no reason to use vulgarities or shout. The Police must act professionally and remember their pledge which contains a line 'to act without fear or favour'. Here the Insp was clearly biased and disfavouring the accused.

This case casts a shadow on the conduct of all officers, if an Insp cannot be relied upon to act professionally in a simple case of assault, what would happen in a more serious case? Supposed the police arrested a molester, will the officer assault him and force a confession? We cannot have officers deciding or determining justice, if this is going to be acceptable, we might as well close down the courts and empower our police officers to decide there and then what they want to do at scenes of crimes. Why waste time with due process and the Law if Police Officers are going to ignore the Law?

Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee should stop wasting time lavishing praise on his officers and should start ensuring they are well trained and follow the Law to the letter.

If Commissioner Ng Joo Hee is really serious about taking the SPF forward and making his mark, he must weed out officers like this Insp. The Insp is too emotional, too erratic, too ignorant and too biased to be entrusted with powers of enforcement. I shudder to think what would happen if a motorist were to encounter him after committing a traffic offence. Will he be accused of all sorts of things, threatened with arrest, verbally abused and then slapped with a heavy penalty that does not reflect the original offence?

With details of the arrest and his detention at Central Division, it shouldn't be too difficult to get to the bottom of this matter.

Although this was sent in anonymously, and could obviously not reflect the full picture on the ground, I think there is enough there to warrant a full and thorough investigation about the conduct of the Insp on the day in question. There is a date provided - 7th April 2013 and we know the accused was sent to Central Police Station and then to IMH. It shouldn't be very hard to trace his identity and the Insp in question. The big question is whether Commissioner Ng will direct such an enquiry to get to the bottom of this matter?

I'd like to highlight the wonderful work done by a very kind lady - Mdm Fion Phua. Her FB page is here. Mdm Phua has for the better part of the last decade dedicated much of her time, effort and money to help the less well off in Singapore.

Mdm Fion Phua (pictured here in 2008) is a true Singaporean heroine in every sense of the word.

She helped found a movement - Pass It On Furniture, where she asks Singaporeans or anyone living here to not throw away their old but usable furniture or electronic appliances. Instead to pass it to her so that she can re-distribute this to those who might need it. She even arranged for it to be picked up and then delivered the persons who need it, all free of charge.

When I was in a bit of dire straights 9 years ago, her assistance helped me get some basic furnishings for my home as well as things like a fridge, washing machine, microwave etc. She had a trusty delivery driver - Ah Poh, who would collect the stuff and send it over. Later when he had extra stuff, he would sometimes call me and ask me to ask around to see who needed whatever items he had in storage. His initiative allowed Mdm Phua to focus on helping the needy directly especially those in 1 room flats.

She also assisted this family who had run out of rice. You can read the New Paper article here.

I am not sure if Ms Phua still oversees Pass It On, but she's spending the new year seeking volunteers who can help paint and clean the homes of those who need assistance. If any of you have the time to spare, please feel free to contact her via FB and offer your assistance.

Don't discard old appliances. If it's clean, not broken and still usable, why not Pass it On?

If she still oversees Pass It On, you can also donate your usable items to her. Any household appliance is alright and the same goes for furniture. However please ensure that appliances are still in working condition, and furniture is clean and not damaged or broken. Alternatively you can also contact the Pass It On.Org run by the Helping Hand, which also collects such items and redistributes to the needy especially the 1 roomers.

The Helping Hand runs PassitOn.org.sg You can contact them via their web page here.

Chinese New Year will soon be round the corner, and there will be those who will buy new stuff, so try not to throw away the old stuff if it's still in good working condition. Instead donate it to either Ms Phua or Passiton.org.sg. Better still if you have new items to sponsor or give away, that would be a good way to share the CNY joy with the less fortunate.

The fake but very seditious FB page of 'Heather Chua.' Whoever is behind is not contributing an iota to Singapore but doing it a great disservice. Compare this person's actions to Mdm Fion Phua. He can't hold a candle to her.

There are a number and I'm glad to say, a growing number at that, of Singaporeans who are doing their bit for the less well off, the poor, the sick and the needy. Mdm Phua is one of those, one who shuns the limelight and goes about trying to brighten someone else's life. She doesn't crave attention like the infamous troll 'Heather Chua', although her work has been reported in the Press. Instead she uses this exposure to further bolster her efforts in helping others. The more exposure, the more people know about the needy and the more they too can contribute.

Mdm Phua 'at it again!!' This time spending 5 hours to clean up this old man's cluttered flat.

I hope many will join me in thanking Mdm Phua and wishing her well in her endeavours, but more so, to take that further step and contribute and thus make a difference. Let's make it a joyous CNY for every one regardless of race, language or religion. Foreigners or permanent residents residing in Singapore can also join in and help.

 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)


 

I heard rumours last year about a plan to convert Nee Soon South into a 'smoke-free zone' by its' MP, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. I thought maybe she'll think it over and realise the futility of the plan and focus on more productive things. Alas that was wishful thinking on my part, I forgot this was Lee Bee Wah we were talking about. Sure enough, last week this wonderful scheme took effect. (see link below)

http://app2.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/newsroom/news-releases/nee-soon-south-constituency-to-pilot-first-community-initiated-smoke-free-zone

Like many silly and pointless exercises it looks pretty neat on paper. Smokers in 'Zone D' will be encouraged to puff away in 6 Designated Smoking Points (DSPs). All of them are located away from paths trodden by residents and are situated mainly in grass patches. Mdm Lee hopes to raise awareness about the harmful effects on '2nd hand smoke' by smokers and wants to convince them of this by using social pressure and educational outreach.

A Designated Smoking Point in Nee South Zone D. It's more a novelty than a deterrent and looks to cost several hundreds at least to set up.

Further to these 6 DSPs, publicity materials such as banners, posters and floor decals will also be displayed prominently. In addition some 20 'ambassadors' of the Health Promotion Board will be on hand to 'guide and advise' smokers together with grassroots leaders in the constituency.

All these looks good but delve deeper into the whole scheme, you'll soon realise it's a complete waste of time, public resources and funds. And it's not just me who's saying this. In a surprise twist, even a journalist from the MSM lambasted it. Ms Maureen Koh in Sunday's New Paper (TNP) summed it up perfectly - Get Real. The New Paper sent a team to observe this new scheme in the zone, spending 4 hours at a time on Wednesday and Friday last. Their observation?  The DSPs were practically empty all the time. And she rightly pointed out that since there's no prohibition in lighting up in areas not affected by the Law, it's basically a toothless tiger.

A 1933 US newspaper headline on the end of Prohibition. The 13 year spell allowed organised crime to grow rapidly and become extremely rich in the process.

Yes education and outreach is all well and good, but let's be practical, if you really want somebody to stop doing something, the only sure way is to make a law. It's not just here in Singapore but elsewhere, it's human nature. As long as something is not legally wrong, most people will insist on their right of freedom to do it. And banning smoking outright is never a good idea. For one, it'll give criminal elements a perfect business opportunity. If you look at the USA's prohibition on drinking in the 1920s, this was the 1 single thing that made the Mafia powerful.

Prior to the banning of smaller packs of cigarettes and keeping duty reasonable, you could hardly find 'contraband cigarette sellers' in Singapore. There was just no point or profit, in selling cigarettes smuggled in from Indonesia, Malaysia or elsewhere. But once the ban of small packs began and the prices of cigarettes soared over the $10 mark, some smokers started to feel the crunch and this gave others the opportunity to smuggle in contraband cigarettes. Even with the stiff penalties and rigid enforcement, it still thrives today. The 1 thing that's hindering its growth however is not the enforcement action (although it plays a part), rather it's the introduction of cheaper brands of cigarettes. Previously when you had only the popular brands like Marlboro and Dunhill, some smokers were more easily coerced to buy contraband cigarettes, because these brands were expensive. However with all sorts of new brands in the market now, and selling at below $10, smokers are more inclined to smoke these legal cigarettes than risk it with the contraband ones.

Contraband cigarettes seized from a peddler in Singapore. Higher excise and the end of smaller packs, created this new criminal enterprise.

Therefore if a blanket ban is imposed nationwide, it'll will inevitably see a spike in contraband cigarettes or if the excise duties once again drive them beyond the $10 mark. Revenue and health concerns aside, there will always be smokers. After all isn't it a person's right to choose to do what he pleases with his own person as long as it's legal? Whatever their reasons for smoking, be it pleasure, stress relief etc, it's a personal thing, we can only discourage and advise, we can't force people to stop or make it next to impossible and altogether inconvenient for smokers to puff away in open areas. We can restrict by law where they can smoke, but we cannot impose something as outrageous as MP Lee's scheme.

It's 1 thing to have posters discouraging smokers from lighting up, quite another to actually confront one and tell him to stub it out, when he's not legally required to. Heated exchanges and possibly fights can break out over such a trivial issue.

In fact according to TNP's report, residents in her zone were not pleased that their views were not canvassed and were annoyed by the scheme. Telling neighbours even strangers, to stop or smoke in the DSPs is not a wise idea as it might lead to disputes or even worse, fights. And smokers themselves are not pleased at being treated like some kind of outcast. As it is, there are so many laws restricting them in public areas, a blanket scheme like this, irks them further with the inconvenience caused.

Lee Bee Wah explaining why JEM had some structural issues - because of a tightening of the floodgates of foreign workers, not the issue of shoddy workmanship or bad engineering and architectural design.

I don't know where Mdm Lee got this idea from or why she thought it wise to go through with it. But did she consider the other crucial elements in implementing this scheme? Firstly, it only makes 1 zone smoke free, even if it's extended to the others, it's still only 1 constituency. It's rather strange to have a scheme in just 1 corner of the island and unfairly targets those in that area. Then we have to look at cost and the use of public funds. Is it proper and wise to waste public monies to build these DSPs and use it on materials to promote it? Is there really a need for it.when there are laws governing lighting up in public?

Mdm Fion Phua bringing joy to under-privileged children. She has openly stated that money and the pursuit of status is not something she's concerned with. Lee Bee Wah should take a leaf out of Mdm Phua's book.

Next is the time and effort needed to carry this scheme out. Is it good or prudent to get volunteers to forego this, when instead they could do something more productive that could benefit the residents in her constituency? Instead of this hare-brained scheme, wouldn't it have been better for these volunteers to do something like what Mdm Fion Phua does, as mentioned in my previous article?

Lee Bee Wah's shocking statement dismissing the voters that did not vote for the PAP, as being bad and litter-bugs.

Like the journalist inferred, Mdm Lee should 'get real!' I don't think voters in her constituency pay her $13,800 a month to come out with schemes like this, that serves no purpose except to make herself look good on paper. If she continues to act in this fashion, out of touch and unconcerned with the situation on the ground, then the title she loves to use - Er (meaning engineer, although rarely used by most engineers) should be also be changed. We can address her as Err Dr Lee Bee Wah, because erring seems to be her speciality - I don't think I need to elaborate on her past missteps, they have a life their own. And this together with all those will make her go down as the one of the worst MPs ever fielded by the PAP. You have to be a real hardcore PAP supporter to like her, everyone I've met that isn't, gets put off by her demeanour and way of talking down to people. If she thinks I'm lying, ask her to contest in a single ward, I even think either Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Desmond Lim who both got just 1% of the votes in the Punggol East by-elections, would defeat her in a straight fight.

Another 'r' should be added to her title as an Engineer. That would be more reflective of what she's been doing and saying since creeping in via the back door of a GRC.

Alas the poor people of Nee Soon South had no such chance to determine her fate as their choice of a directly elected representative. They have to bear with the strange 'smoke signals' she continues to send, oblivious to the real issues that they need addressed.

I will admit this is not a very major issue, however it's still something I feel slightly peeved about - the fact there's now no space for public parking at police stations in Singapore. I feel it adds to a growing perception that the Police are moving away from their stated aim of serving the public and instead expects the public to accommodate to their wishes.

I am not asking for public parking spaces in all uniformed services, like the military or civil defense. Generally there should be no real reason for the public to go to army camps or fire stations, unless by invitation, as such they are under no obligation to provide parking space. That said some army camps do actually provide these, just outside the guardhouse. I believe the Civil Defense Academy also provides this. Only the Police denies this service.

No one expects to be allowed to drive into the SOC Queensway Base. This unit does not serve the public directly.

I am not asking for lots in specialist units like the Special Operations Command, Gurkha Contigent, Security or Transport Commands, etc. These units do not handle public on a day to day basis. Rather it's the 6 police stations, their respective NPCs, Traffic Police and maybe the Airport Police. These units deal with the public daily, either those who come in to lodge various reports, retrieve/hand over found items or to attend interviews and statement taking. Previously all provided some parking lots, maybe in the range of 5-8. However all this has now gone.

The Sept 11 attacks gave the Govt a good reason to find another 'bogeyman.' Like their US counter-parts, it seems that a DPM or senior Minister does not attend public functions where the whole Cabinet is in attendance, but kept in an 'undisclosed location.'

No explanation was given for this change but the most plausible reason I can think of  - is the link to terrorist attacks on police stations in certain cities elsewhere. I think this change came after the Sept 11 attacks in 2001. Some may argue all the steps taken by the Police and Govt was in an abundance of caution, while others might think it's typical fear-mongering - always finding a 'bogeymen' who's out to get Singapore, in this case, Muslim extremists angry at our support of the USA's actions following those attacks. Some may say it's justified given the arrests of a JI cell based in Singapore that intended to attack US sailors and foreign embassies. Others find the link tenuous, noting that the places these kind of attacks took place were in hot-spots like Pakistan, Indonesia, even Northern Ireland or in countries that openly supported US led the Iraq and Afghan Wars. True Singapore had a team stationed in the latter, but they were supposedly 'medical', just a tiny number and we were 1 of numerous countries that provided non combat support.

A JI cell operating in Singapore with plans of a large scale attack was detected and later busted.

Now coming to police stations here, even that JI cell's plans had nothing to do with attacking the police, it was targeted at the US and foreign embassies whose countries provided open military support, or as is always a possibility - an attack on Israeli missions. These are the targets that had these kind of attacks in various countries - not local police stations with local people.

However let's accept this possibility for the Police response here. They have to act with caution and take preventive measures (Pity they did not take similar preventive action to prevent the Little India riot or the Kovan murders). As such the police must bar all private vehicles driven by the public from entering/parking at police stations. Ostensibly this is to prevent someone from loading his car or van with explosives and then triggering a suicide or controlled explosion. Ok fair enough, perhaps we gotta swallow this quite plausible explanation. However in a similar vein, we cannot be expected to swallow the reasons for police officers to be able to drive their own private cars into the station and park it therein.

A communist car bomb attack along Still Road in 1974. A bomb can be planted in any vehicle, not just an ordinary person's but even a policeman's without his knowledge.

Of course I'm not suggesting a police officer will deliberately laden his car with explosives and then do the unthinkable by using it to blow the station up. Rather I'm suggesting, any determined terrorist can easily affix, attach or plant explosives on/in/under these cars without the knowledge of these officers. Time and again you can see police officers driving their personal vehicles in (and out0 of stations without any form of checks whatsoever, either by an 'under-carriage mirror', searching of the trunk or the vehicle's interior. They are just waved through. So what justifiable reason is there to deny the public to do likewise and be able to drive in, and yet allow these officers in? Even so, if these officer's cars are now subjected to checks, why can't the same be done for the public?

The failure to use this kind of mirrors amongst other checks on policemen's cars defeats the whole purpose of banning the public's private cars from entering the stations.

I don't see how the Police can explain away this one. They are just taking the easy way out and in doing so greatly inconveniencing the public. Officers manning the gates tell the public to park in nearby public or HDB lots, it sounds easy and logical, however some of these stations do not have public carparks nearby. In some HDB estates, parking is reserved for season ticket holders after a certain time and the nearest public lots are a distance away. Some stations like Tanglin and Traffic Police have very limited public lots nearby, these are inevitably always occupied. You have to park a distance away. In rainy weather, this becomes very frustrating especially when you don't have an umbrella. Moreover some people do not think of umbrellas, ensuring they have sufficient parking coupons or topped up cash cards, when driving to police stations. They are in a stressful mood, concerned about their complaint, not about where and how to park. And not all find it convenient to take public transport, some live faraway and come late in the night. Why can't they drive their vehicles if they have one, and it's convenient to do so?

Traffic Police HQ, is the one station, you'd expect to drive to, since it involves vehicles. Doesn't the management realise they should assist the public in providing some parking instead of having them park elsewhere, even worse with no coupons or indiscriminately and thus get another summons whilst settling one?

Back to the issue of policemen driving to and from work and parking their cars in the station. Why should they have the convenience of doing so, and then deny the very public they are supposed to serve of it? Are the police, public servants or their masters? Then we may ask, do they pay parking charges? If not, why not? Yes we can accept that certain key officers like the Commander, his deputy, the Heads of Departments should be given parking spaces, maybe even free of charge, given the importance of their roles. They need easy access into the station especially when a major incident occurs. But the same cannot be for all other officers, at the expense of the public. They must also pay for parking, the public can also be charged. If they aren't charged, then likewise the public must also be allowed in free as well.

Nice slogans, but what about accountability, preventing incidents and serving the public, instead of getting them to do these for you?

Given the amount leeway that the Police Management are allowed to get away with, without offering concrete reasons for their recent failures, I'm not hopeful this very poor action will ever be rectified. From the Commissioner down, the top brass remain oblivious to the issues on the ground, failing to take proper preventive measures, pushing the buck and finding the easy options. They are immune to criticisms, brushing them aside, quick to take credit and embrace praise, while paying lip service about serving the public. Meanwhile the public have to suffer because of their failings and continue to stomach it, and just hope that somehow, somewhere, by some stroke of luck, they will eventually come to their senses and rectify things.

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.

Glasgow will host the 20th Commonwealth Games from July 23rd to August 3rd. The next Games is due to be held in Australia's Gold Coast in 2018. However to date no nation or city has formally bid to host the 22nd edition in 2022. The closing date for bidding is due in March, but I suspect it will be extended to give cities time to consider launching their bids. The Commonwealth Games (CG) is the 3rd largest multi-sport event in the world after the Olympics and Asian Games. I believe the time is right for Singapore to offer itself as a potential host city.

The logo of the 20th Commonwealth Games in Glasgow from July to August this year.

The CG although originally comprised the 52 member states that make up the Commonwealth, has incorporated participation from former territories and dependencies. 71 such states are now eligible to participate. Given that Singapore has mulled over hosting an Asian Games in the past, it's a good idea to start with the smaller CG first. If successfully hosted, we can go for the Asian Games and hopefully 1 day be in a position to host the crème de le crème itself - the Olympics. However given our size and number core sports that must be included in hosting the Olympics, such as cycling, tennis, rowing, modern pentathlon amongst others, it might not be practical to build arenas for such events only for them to become 'white elephants' later on.

The highly successful SCC Rugby 7s. Rugby 7s is a core sport at the CG and we have the venue and experience to host this event.

Thus the CG with its much lesser core sports is a more practical option. It only has 10 core sports - athletics, swimming, boxing, netball, badminton, squash, rugby 7s, weightlifting, lawn bowls and field hockey. All these we have arenas that are already available to accommodate them. For sure they will need touching up and increased seating, but essentially we will not have to build new arenas solely for them, unless of course we have plans to develop them already. Glasgow is planning to have 17 sports, this is something we can follow. From the list of recognised sports available for host selection we can choose the events we have infrastructure and athletes who can excel in them. These include soccer, table-tennis, water-polo, sailing, shooting, golf, billiards, archery, fencing, diving and triathlon.

Good as gold, Singapore's water-polo team defend their ubiquitous SEA Games gold. Water-polo is a recognised sport which Singapore can choose and give the boys the chance to prove themselves against better teams and possibly qualify for the Olympics on merit.

The important thing is that the CG is held after an Olympics (2020, 2024) and not during a World Athletics or Swimming Championships year. Glasgow has got a very god timing, in that this year's event will not clash with the lucrative IAAF Diamond League Athletic races, and being an off year following the World Championships and Olympics in 2013 and 2012 respectively, there's a high chance that some of the world's top athletes will consider participating. Usain Bolt is mulling over it, but there could be a place for someone like David Rudisha (the 1500m Olympic champion who missed the world event due to injury), Jonathan Blake (no 2 ranked sprinter after Bolt) and others who missed out on the previous events due to injuries, or use this as a springboard to the next world championships in 2015 or the Rio Olympics. Then there are some who do not have the CG medal in their portfolio, they too might consider participating. The crucial thing is to plan the Games well and make sure it does not clash with a major event. 2022 is of course a FIFA World Cup year, with Qatar as the hosts. But it appears they might hold it in the winter months of January or February, so the 2022 hosts has to take this into consideration. But the ideal date of a summer games in the months of June and July look a good bet.

Having won and defended his Olympic and World titles, Usain Bolt is mulling representing Jamaica in Glasgow. A carefully selected calendar made this concept a possibility, something the 2022 and 2026 hosts must take into consideration.

Due to the lack of interest in the Games, an emergency CG Council meeting was held in KL on January 31st, to try and prod nations to consider a bid, with the onus on Africa, which has never hosted the Games before. However it remains to be seen whether any African nation is prepared to stump the cash to host the Games. This would be costly for them as they would need basic infrastructure like roads, rail, not to mention stadia and accommodation to be built. Thus far it seems that only South Africa has the ability to host the Games. But I get the feeling they are looking towards an Olympic bid more than anything.

The 2010 YOG was mired in controversy because of cost over-runs and lack of real interest and revenue. But it gave youngsters here a chance to represent their country, something not entirely wasted.

In fact Singapore has been thinking about these Games as mentioned in this report from 2012. Of course this needs Govt approval and a budget needs to be set aside for it. Following the cost over-run for the 2010 YOG, there might be some apprehension in certain quarters about the cost of hosting the CG. Glasgow for example has set aside around $800-900 million for it. However, this includes building 3 new stadia for it and of course the cost of employment is much higher in the West than it is in Asia. If properly managed a budget of $500-600 million should suffice to host this Games. The YOG wasn't popular because it's not a global event that would attract the headlines, and not really lucrative enough to garner TV revenue from broadcasting rights. That was something Ng Ser Miang and Minister Balakrishnan failed to see or realise, but I doubt the CG would suffer the same fate.

Did we pander to Ng Ser Miang's bid to become IOC President by bidding for the 2010 YOG? Whatever the reasons, he should have instead sounded the Govt to make a bid for the more popular and relevant CG instead.

But the cost would pale in comparison in what it would do for local sports. It will be give the core sports mentioned and the 6 or 7 others that we could choose (obviously ones we are good at) a huge boost. It's 8 years away, ample time to start grooming local talent. It'll give these athletes a huge fillip and a chance to send more representatives to the 2024 or 2028 Olympics. It'll give us a real shot at winning CG gold medals and possibly thereafter some Olympics ones (irrespective of colour). It'll give more local athletes the chance to compete against some of the best and upcoming stars in these events, something we have been severely limited, because we can only send a fraction to these kind of overseas Games.

Artist impressions of the new sports hub and stadium due to be ready. The CG would give a real global event worthy of its design and status. (Btw I want it named Choo Seng Quee Stadium or Tan Howe Liang Sports Hub, more in a future post)

And there's a chance with TV coverage (and revenue) and huge feel good factor hosting such an event, it'll will truly put Singapore on the map and attract the right kind of tourists. With the new sports hub and stadium opening soon, this will be the perfect event for it to play host to. So come then, let's be a good sport and put ourselves forward. If a smaller city like KL could do it in 1998, why not Singapore in 2022 or 2026?