Four More Years

Obama's re-election for a second term is sweet.

Recall that at a local conference in early February 2008, it was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, no less, who labelled Obama as a “flash in the pan”. He continued to exhibit public disdain and lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate, right until the moment when the financial crisis hit corporate America in September 2008. The daughter-in-law had invested heavily in Bank Of America shares.

In stark contrast, Lee spoke effusively about John McCain in laudatory terms, lavishing public praise on the senator’s record and experience in government, all but endorsing him as Singapore’s choice for President of the United States. Even the Straits Times got in on the act, hosting a joint commentary authored by John  McCain and fellow senator Joe Lieberman on the subject  of the US’ commitment to Asia on the opening day of the 2008 Shangri-La dialogue, an annual gathering of defence ministers held in Singapore.

Today, even as the score card showed the electoral votes for the Democrats clear the 270 halfway mark, the ChannelNewsAsia team was still rooting for Obama's opponent. And, while Obama was delivering his powerful thank you speech, the CNA newsfeed scrolled that the US dollar tumbled against the Euro at the news of the historic re-election.

All probably because one man claimed, and probably still claims to his dying day, Singapore is not ready for an Indian prime minister.

You bet Obama scares him. Especially when the man said what makes USA great is that the country welcomes dissenting views and voices. This is a guy who says it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, or what you look like, or where you loved. It doesn't matter if you are black or white, or hispanic or asian, or native american, or young or old, rich or poor, able or disabled, gay or straight..... we are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions. But of course, Obama doesn't have to contend with a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system that was implemented because of one man's belief that votes are cast along racial lines.

The Law In His Hands

To commemorate the retirement of the outgoing chief justice, the Singapore Academy of Law published a 828-page book entitled "The Law In His Hands: A Tribute To Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong". Chan, age 75, is reputed to be a prolific writer, having delivered 380 judgments in his 12 years on the Bench. One of his handiwork was produced in Parliament at the behest of then Law Minister S. Jayakumar:

21 July 1997

Prof S JayakumarMinister for Law

PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS INSIDE POLLING STATIONS

On 14 July l997, THE Workers' Party issued a press release expressing "amazement" that the public prosecutor had advised police that no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates for the relevant constituencies. The Workers' Party queried why such conduct was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the attorney general to explain his "truly befuddling" decision and to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.

3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in these two statements. My opinion is set out below.

4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.

5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below) Activities Outside Polling Stations

6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959 pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called "the Elias Report)"

7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.

9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.

11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station.

12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.

13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:

"In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day ."

14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading "Activity OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS". The Commission of Inquiry was addressing the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.

15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever possible, be resolved favour of the accused.

Activities Inside Polling Stations
16. Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -
"the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station."

17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.

18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.

19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.

20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.

Signed:
Chan Sek Keong
Attorney General

At the farewell festivities, Chan said his only contribution for the book was the title. Keeping in character with his judicial mindset, he was careful to qualify the choice of words, "The title does not mean taking the law into my hands."

Catch The Litterbugs

Are we such incorrigible litterbugs that government officials should slime us to no end? Talk about giving a dog a bad name and hanging him.

It was not so many years ago when our Taiwan agent told us about his Singaporean visitor sight-seeing at Huaxi Street Night Market (Chinese: 華西街夜市; Hwahsi Jie), and looking for a trash bin to dump his sweet wrapper. It was a fruitless endeavor in the streets of Taipei and, according to the admiring Taiwanese, our compatriot finally kept it in his pocket until he could deposit it at the litter basket of his hotel room.

Then there was the experience of visiting North Western University campus for the first time, and discovering that the walkways were so clean that you could literally eat off the pavement. Suddenly it dawned that when the Ang Mohs waxed lyrical about Singapore being so clean and green, they actually meant it was cleaner than expected, compared to the congested Asian capitals of Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Manila. Quite obviously, sparsely populated suburban areas are less polluted by the human debris associated with overcrowded cities. The "windy city" of Chicago had natural elements to sweep the pathways clear, not cleaners from Bangladesh.

At the CGS Carnival at The Meadow, Gardens by the Bay, Tharman repeated the recent NEA survey claim that about one-third of Singaporeans said they would litter if they can get away with it. This could have been the same survey that was quoted to justify MP (Nee Soon GRC) Lee Bee Wah's Facebook rant, “Can we use the strength and power of the 60% good Singaporeans and residents who do not litter to put pressure and change the bad habit of the other 40% litterbugs?” Except that the percentage had been tweaked to blunt the innuendo, what Chinese would term "There is bones in her speech".

With so many foreign elements crowding out our law abiding citizens, most of whom have put in two years of military service to ensure our property is protected, are the wagging fingers pointed in the right direction? Maybe the vigilantes proposed by Vivian Balakrishnan should be unleashed, just to clear the air about recalcitrant litterbugs. Some of whom may not have acted intentionally to dirty the living space, but to spite the authorities for mismanagement in the first place.

Fitting The Bell Curve

It used to be easy to spot an educated person, the way he carries himself (with dignity) and behaves in front of elders (respectfully). The mark of erudition was not in the paper qualification, but the humble acknowledgement that he always has more to learn. Those were the days when only 5% made it to university. Then, scholars were not closeted pedophiles or exhibitionistic perverts.

Then came the bell curve, the graphical representation of the probability density of the normal distribution (also called the Gaussian distribution), and a statistical method of assigning grades designed to yield a pre-determined distribution of grades among the students in a cohort. National Institute of Education's Assistant Professor Kelvin Tan tells us it's the wretched T-score that matters, that determines whether one gains entrance to a brand name school. The teachers couldn't be bothered whether the youngster acquired the necessary learning to put him in good stead for a meaningful life.  It's all about fitting a finite number into finite schools, places which are continually reduced to accommodate foreign students, brought in at our expense, to dig spurs into our own.

His analogy of a doctored Olympics bears repeating:

"Imagine a new kind of technlogy for the next Olympics, where there is no bar to jump over. The high jumpers just keep jumping, higher and higher.
At the end of the competition, they are not told the actual height that they have jumped, but who comes first, second and third. This meets the purpose of the Olympics in determining who jumped the highest.
But the actual height is not made known to anyone."

Dr Tan explains that the T-score itself doesn't actually tell the student how well he has performed in each subject or across the subjects. In effect, it is just a queue number.

With such an introduction to the rat race, it's no wonder the end product is an embarrassing parade of miscreants. Lawyers who barge into court proceedings uninvited, doctors who lie and scheme to avoid a traffic ticket, and professors who barter gifts for grades.  It makes one wonder what they learn in the universities. The tragedy here is that our system of meritocracy is protective of the charmed lives of those fortunate to be anointed "scholars". Even when they fail spectacularly in the duties assigned - witness the numbers who hold high office without the relevant qualification or track record - they are moved laterally into another well compensated appointment. No wonder parents go through extremes and jump silly hoops to make sure their charges ace the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). One end of the bell curve promises riches in millions, the other spells "It's The End" (ITE).

CPIB Questioned

District Judge Siva Shanmugam and Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Ken Hwee were understandably miffed when the court heard that the Deputy Director of Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Teng Khee Fatt may have his own agenda in the case against former Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief Ng Boon Gay. Latter's defense counsel Tan Chee Meng was accused of "casting aspersion" on the integrity of the CPIB, specifically by mentioning that somebody was "bent on proving charges" against Ng. All these guys (save the lawyer in private practice) are civil servants of the same cloth.  Watching them go at each other like fighting cocks engaged in illegal blood sport is such sweet theater. Will the CPIB ever be investigated for corrupt practices?

Deputy  Director Teng's personalised treatment for witness questioned

CPIB's Teng could simply stop filing investigation details when he felt like it, even though there's a law mandating police officers to do so. Maybe that law applies only to the rank and file members, not Deputy Directors. Challenged about  an entry concerning a witness being willing to take a polygraph test, Teng's dismissed the incongruence with: "I left out the 'not'." Leaving us to believe it was just another honest mistake in the everyday life of a law enforcement officer. The court should make Teng take the polygraph test on this.

What is real maddening is the deal making that goes on in his office. Teng confirms this (see left clipping). Worse, Teng seems emboldened to change the course of justice to suit his personal predilection, or maybe that's the new normal in our judicial system. But who would have known that the CPIB has the authority to direct how the mainstream media should put the spin on this major case of corruption in the upper echelons of civil service?

A friend was once interviewed for some minor infringement, and the investigating officer assured him he would be given a warning letter. Imagine the shock when same officer informed him later that his superior overruled the official recommendation and insisted on a charge. After months, and lots of lawyer monies, the charge was dropped. All because somebody wanted to play God. That's why sometimes boys in blue are as odious as men in white.