When Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong urged criminal defence lawyers to do more to promote ethical practices, he wasn't inferring that Singapore lawyers are a crooked bunch- although there were high profile cases of legal professionals who absconded with clients' monies. He was advocating that lawyers do not encourage clients to launch appeals that have no chance of succeeding. Don't waste money, you can't beat the system, seems to be the message, "In doing so, you are simply taking their hard-earned, and perhaps borrowed, money unconscionably." Interestingly, the appeal fee has just been hiked ten-fold from $5 to $50, something to do with "cost recovery" in the context of criminal prosecution.
The number of appeals to the High Court was 248 in 2009, up from 227 the year before. A large number of these appeals ended up with a stiffer sentence or higher fine. A man jailed a month for assaulting a taxi driver had his prison time jacked to three months, when he appealed for the original sentence to be reduced to a fine. So why do they persist? The CJ has once said that the law should not only be upheld, but must be seen to be upheld too. Perhaps the players in the courts, the judges and the advocates on both sides, have yet to instill confidence in the justice system. Maybe we can blame it on Alan Shadrake's book, or the way his accusations are contested. To borrow the comment of lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, "The only currency a lawyer has is his integrity."
Another lawyer suggested that the CJ's remarks aim to strike a balance between ensuring the offender's right to appeal and preventing the system from being overloaded with too many appeals. Which begs another question - was the initiative weighted to address the court's bureaucratic inefficiencies or cost considerations for the client? After all, the struggle to save a man's life from the gallows surely cannot be measured in monetary terms.
CJ Chan recognises the pioneering element involved, "I have not heard of any other jurisdiction where the Bench, the Prosecution and the Criminal Bar have voluntary agreed to discuss issues and problems of criminal justice that arise from time to time in the course of their work." Judging from Singapore's unique tripartite system, where the worker sometimes gets shortchanged, one can appreciate why some have already expressed reservations about the outcome.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Another Slapping Incident
The slapper was the executive director of a securities firm, with investments in Hong Kong and Vietnam. The slappee was a remisier, a self-employed with a desk in a stock broking firm, way down the food chain.
Had Mr Ong not settled out of court for the impetuosity of a moment, he could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined up to $5,000. Pek had filed a magistrate's complaint for being at the receiving end of a slapping action over a work related issue, and the court found it serious enough to file a charge of voluntary hurt. The undisclosed financial settlement had the charges withdrawn, case closed, and details sealed under protection of confidentiality. There's not enough material to write a chapter in a book about the incident, with or without the potential threat of a libel lawsuit.
In the olden days of chivalry, a mere ritual slap in the face (probably with a silken handkerchief), said to be the last affront one could accept without redress, would have to be settled by duelling pistols or swords to demand satisfaction from the offender. What more barbaric than a vigorous smack across a table with an open palm.
At the choice of the offended party, the duel used to be settled:
- to draw first blood, in which case the duel would be ended as soon as one man was wounded;
- until one man was so severely wounded as to be physically unable to continue;
- to the death, in which case there would be no satisfaction until one party was mortally wounded;
- or, in the case of pistol duels, each party would fire one shot. If neither man was hit and if the challenger stated that he was satisfied, the duel would be declared over. A pistol duel could continue until one man was wounded or killed.
During the early Renaissance, duelling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. But gentlemen have gone the way of the Dodo, and money (and political power) is the new currency of honour. Some say money can't buy happiness, you can add that respect can't be bought too.
Had Mr Ong not settled out of court for the impetuosity of a moment, he could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined up to $5,000. Pek had filed a magistrate's complaint for being at the receiving end of a slapping action over a work related issue, and the court found it serious enough to file a charge of voluntary hurt. The undisclosed financial settlement had the charges withdrawn, case closed, and details sealed under protection of confidentiality. There's not enough material to write a chapter in a book about the incident, with or without the potential threat of a libel lawsuit.
In the olden days of chivalry, a mere ritual slap in the face (probably with a silken handkerchief), said to be the last affront one could accept without redress, would have to be settled by duelling pistols or swords to demand satisfaction from the offender. What more barbaric than a vigorous smack across a table with an open palm.
At the choice of the offended party, the duel used to be settled:
- to draw first blood, in which case the duel would be ended as soon as one man was wounded;
- until one man was so severely wounded as to be physically unable to continue;
- to the death, in which case there would be no satisfaction until one party was mortally wounded;
- or, in the case of pistol duels, each party would fire one shot. If neither man was hit and if the challenger stated that he was satisfied, the duel would be declared over. A pistol duel could continue until one man was wounded or killed.
During the early Renaissance, duelling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. But gentlemen have gone the way of the Dodo, and money (and political power) is the new currency of honour. Some say money can't buy happiness, you can add that respect can't be bought too.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Current Generosity Of The State
One of the personal stories about how Workfare benefited 300,000 who are in the older, low-wage workers category started off this way:
"When Workfare was first introduced in 2007, massage therapist Kelly Poon, 44. was working part-time and earning $950 a month.
The Workfare Income Supplement boosted her income by $900 that year."
Since the morning caffeine fix hadn't kicked in yet, the initial reaction was like "Wow! What a caring government to help those in financial need!" At first reading, the sentence construction made it seem like she had her income nearly doubled.
In reality, the more than $300 million paid out to over 300,000 workers is spread pretty thin. In 2009, each recipient received an average of "more than" $1,000. Before you smile again, note that 2/7 of the payout is in cash, 5/7 is deposited in the illiquid Central Provident Fund. The self-employed is worse off, their money is locked away in Medisave. No wonder some call CPF the "Coffin Provision Fund".
Mr Savakumar's personal experience with the state generosity is Workfare payout of between $535 to $1,732. That's per year, not per month. Ms Poon, who currently receives $250 per year from Workfare, states the obvious when she wished more was in cash and less channelled to her CPF account. "The money helps a little, but how long does $100 last? Only three weeks at the most," she said in Mandarin, not meaning to sound ungrateful. Couldn't have phrased it more accurately than the politically correct journalist.
"When Workfare was first introduced in 2007, massage therapist Kelly Poon, 44. was working part-time and earning $950 a month.
The Workfare Income Supplement boosted her income by $900 that year."
Since the morning caffeine fix hadn't kicked in yet, the initial reaction was like "Wow! What a caring government to help those in financial need!" At first reading, the sentence construction made it seem like she had her income nearly doubled.
In reality, the more than $300 million paid out to over 300,000 workers is spread pretty thin. In 2009, each recipient received an average of "more than" $1,000. Before you smile again, note that 2/7 of the payout is in cash, 5/7 is deposited in the illiquid Central Provident Fund. The self-employed is worse off, their money is locked away in Medisave. No wonder some call CPF the "Coffin Provision Fund".
Mr Savakumar's personal experience with the state generosity is Workfare payout of between $535 to $1,732. That's per year, not per month. Ms Poon, who currently receives $250 per year from Workfare, states the obvious when she wished more was in cash and less channelled to her CPF account. "The money helps a little, but how long does $100 last? Only three weeks at the most," she said in Mandarin, not meaning to sound ungrateful. Couldn't have phrased it more accurately than the politically correct journalist.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
A Good Buy
No such superstitious qualm dissuaded two brothers from buying the Sentosa Cove bungalow in which a China girl drowned under mysterious circumstances in the dead of night, on March 24. Such is the attraction of a good bargain in Singapore. The three-storey waterfront unit on Ocean Drive at Sentosa Cove, advertised at $15.8 million and below the valuation of $17 million, was sold in August 2010 for S$13.6 million. At S$1,690 psf, the 8,049 square foot plot represents a saving of S$6 million, based on the S$2,546 asking price of a similar bungalow transacted in the the following month. We are not told what was the original price paid by the former owner, rumoured son but no relation of business tycoon Chua Thian Poh, the high school dropout who earned his first million by age 21 making hooks and spikes for logging industry.
The new owners plan to use the bungalow as a “holiday home” for family gatherings after their S$1 million renovations are complete. Assuming that does not include cementing over the swimming pool, one can imagine the house guests, suitably charged by alcoholic beverages, staying up all night, laying bets for the nocturnal sighting of a nude swimmer. That should take some business away from the casino.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Not For The Faint Hearted
True to form, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's new year message skims over the thunderstorms in the horizon. He mentions the "challenges" of the influx of foreigners, keeping homes affordable, and coping with cost of living. "We have the means to tackle these problems," he claims. But with Goh Keng Swee gone, who's going to tackle the "impossible trinity" - a far worse problem than the Father, Son and holy Goh triumvirate.
There are more foreign funds coming into Singapore than MAS can handle, to the tune of 90% of GDP. Something's gotta give, according to a source in DBS. In October 2010, US$17 billion was spent buying up Singdollars, the strengthening of which has to be bad news for the struggling exporters. US$8.2 billion was used for spot market intervention, US$8.6 billion for forward markets. Why forward? So that the delayed time-bomb won't show up in the books now, only later, probably after the elections.
The trilemma refers to the inherent incompatibility in the three macroeconomic aims: (1) free capital flow, (2) fixed exchange rates, and (3) monetary autonomy. China chose (2) and (3), pegging its currency to the US$. Australia has a free float to support (1) and (3), which makes it vulnerable to exchange rate volatility. Singapore opted for a managed float, the exchange rate based on a secret list of 20 currencies. This basket can be distilled to 60% US$, 25% Yen, and 15% Euros. Since the S$ has appreciated nearly 3%, you would expect the interest rate to drop, for balanced fund flow. Trade-Weighted interbank offer rate (TWibor) is currently 0.4%, which means Sibor has to be in the region of -2.6%. But negative interest rate will be suicidal for the politicians, and people will prefer to withdraw cash from the banks to put behind their pillows, or in an empty Milo tin. The price of a managed float and free capital flow will haunt the domestic money supply with a vengeance.
Professor Lim Chin of NUS Business School wrote that "Singapore has the capacity to mitigate the effects of flows," echoing the bravado of Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He may or may not have taken into account the quantitative easing measures of the US. Thailand in 1997 (the baht was then similarly fixed to a basket of currencies with the US dollar having by far the largest weight) also butted its head against the "impossible trinity" trilemma, with disastrous results, when capital inflows rose from US$29 billion in 1990 (34% of GDP) to US$108.7 billion in 1996 (59% of GDP). Now you understand why the DBS guy is running around, yapping like Chicken Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
There are more foreign funds coming into Singapore than MAS can handle, to the tune of 90% of GDP. Something's gotta give, according to a source in DBS. In October 2010, US$17 billion was spent buying up Singdollars, the strengthening of which has to be bad news for the struggling exporters. US$8.2 billion was used for spot market intervention, US$8.6 billion for forward markets. Why forward? So that the delayed time-bomb won't show up in the books now, only later, probably after the elections.
The trilemma refers to the inherent incompatibility in the three macroeconomic aims: (1) free capital flow, (2) fixed exchange rates, and (3) monetary autonomy. China chose (2) and (3), pegging its currency to the US$. Australia has a free float to support (1) and (3), which makes it vulnerable to exchange rate volatility. Singapore opted for a managed float, the exchange rate based on a secret list of 20 currencies. This basket can be distilled to 60% US$, 25% Yen, and 15% Euros. Since the S$ has appreciated nearly 3%, you would expect the interest rate to drop, for balanced fund flow. Trade-Weighted interbank offer rate (TWibor) is currently 0.4%, which means Sibor has to be in the region of -2.6%. But negative interest rate will be suicidal for the politicians, and people will prefer to withdraw cash from the banks to put behind their pillows, or in an empty Milo tin. The price of a managed float and free capital flow will haunt the domestic money supply with a vengeance.
Professor Lim Chin of NUS Business School wrote that "Singapore has the capacity to mitigate the effects of flows," echoing the bravado of Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He may or may not have taken into account the quantitative easing measures of the US. Thailand in 1997 (the baht was then similarly fixed to a basket of currencies with the US dollar having by far the largest weight) also butted its head against the "impossible trinity" trilemma, with disastrous results, when capital inflows rose from US$29 billion in 1990 (34% of GDP) to US$108.7 billion in 1996 (59% of GDP). Now you understand why the DBS guy is running around, yapping like Chicken Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
