On Yap and Friends

ST Nov 7, 2006
Court orders transcript, images on Net removed
By Ken Kwek

SINGAPORE Democratic Party (SDP) supporter Yap Keng Ho has posted online a transcript and still images from police video clips showing him and two others allegedly speaking in public without a permit.

He may be held in contempt of court for the act, District Judge Eddy Tham told him yesterday on the eighth day of a trial involving Yap, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan and party member Gandhi Ambalam.

The trio are on trial for speaking in public without a permit.

Last week, they had received DVD copies and a transcript of the video recording, both of which had been submitted as evidence by the prosecution.

Judge Tham told Yap that by posting the information online, he may have illegally made a public comment on the case while it was still sub judice, or before the courts.

He asked Yap to remove the information from the blog and also warned Chee and Yap not to put online the copies of video and transcript they had.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng had earlier objected to Yap's action, saying that it went against the court's ruling that the trio could use the DVDs only to prepare for their defence and 'not for other uses'.

Yap argued that since the original had been screened in open court before the public and media last week, it should also be made available to the public for the sake of transparency.

Chee asked the judge to clarify whether the action was definitely unlawful as he too had been thinking of putting the information online as part of the preparation of his defence.

Judge Tham said he could not make a ruling before hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence.

The trial continues today.

This is interesting. Firstly I wonder whether the judge actually did order Yap to remove the transcript and images. That's what the ST headline tells us, but the ST article tells a slightly different story.

The actual article merely says that the judge has told Yap that he may be held in contempt for doing such a thing. There is a distinction here, although I think it's one that matters more to lawyers than non-lawyers (like Ken Kwek, the journalist).

Can an accused person (or a witness) post evidence from a court case on the Internet? As a general principle, criminal trials are held in open court. It means that members of the public are free to walk into court to witness the trial.

In other words, anyone could very well have come to court to watch the video as it was being screened there. Since that is the case, it doesn't seem to me to be unfair or harmful for the video to be posted on the Internet.

The video is really just a piece of evidence, just like oral testimony from a witness. A video may show Chee making a speech about XYZ in a public place and several hundred people in the audience". Similarly, a witness may come to court and say, "I saw Chee making a speech about XYZ in a public place and several hundred people in the audience."

After testifying in court, the witness leaves and is generally free to tell the whole world what he said in court (subject to a few limited exceptions). In other words, he's free to transmit his testimony (or evidence) to the whole world. It seems to me that the video should also be similarly transmittable.

In some situations, the court can order certain kinds of evidence not to be made public. For example, the court may order the press not to reveal the name of the victim of a sexual offence. In a counterfeiting case, the court may also order the expert's evidence on how counterfeit currency notes are made or detected to be heard "in camera" - the technical term for prohibiting public disclosure - because we don't want the whole world to learn how to make counterfeit notes.

None of those kinds of exceptions seem to apply in the present case.

Turning to the point about contempt of court. The most common examples of contempt would be:

(a) the person deliberately defying a court order (however, as I had said, the above article is not altogether clear as to whether the court had actually made any order, and if so, what is the basis for such order);

(b) the person being very rude, disrespectful or disruptive in the course of proceedings in court.

There is a third species of contempt of court. It relates to the "publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial". Here are some (not all) of the conditions that generally must be met, before we can say that such contempt has occurred:

1. the publication has a real and definite tendency, as a matter of practical reality, to interfere with the due administration of justice in specific legal proceedings,

2. the publication prejudges the issues to be decided in those proceedings;

3. at the time of publication, the relevant legal proceedings were current or pending;

4. the severity of possible prejudice to the administration of justice is not outweighed by the public interest in freedom of discussion of matters of public importance which form the subject of the publication; and

5. the publication is not a fair and accurate report of proceedings in open court.

It seems to me that it will be very difficult in our present case to say that Yap has committed this species of contempt. One reason is that Yap is merely publishing the prosecution's evidence, which the prosecution itself had already adduced in open court.

The fact that the court had allowed such evidence to be admitted, showing that the court considers it to be relevant. The fact that Yap is not publishing his own material, but material that comes from the prosecution, makes it just about impossible to say that the publication unfairly prejudices the prosecution's case.

Those are the technicalities. But as I conclude, I'd still like to remind everyone to take two steps back and not miss the trees for the wood.

The whole point of the video is still to prove that Chee Soon Juan and friends were making a public speech at a particular time and place on a particular date.

Now, hands up, those of you who think that Chee in fact didn't make that speech.

+++++++++
Technorati: Singapore; law; Chee Soon Juan.

Backgrounders: Here and here.

Tidbits From MM Lee

ST Nov 4, 2006
Tougher to get leaders to stay in govt for long
They need 10-20 years to master art of govt, but private sector a strong draw, says MM

By Sue-Ann Chia

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew believes it will be increasingly difficult to expect political leaders to stay in office for long, given the attractions of the private sector.

But without good leaders stepping forward, Singapore will falter, he warned.

'So, I'm hoping that while we may not get them to stay for long terms like I have done - my whole life... since 1955, that's a good 51 years - at least you're going to stay for 10, 20 years because you need two to three terms to really master the art of government.'

MM Lee was speaking to about 300 faculty staff and students from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy during a one-hour dialogue which centred on the issue of good governance.

Those who asked questions hailed from countries such as China, India and Kazakhstan.

MM Lee's remarks on the tenure of political leaders here was in response to a Singaporean who asked if Singapore would consider having foreigners take on important positions in the public sector.

'It is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country,' he replied. 'You must have the passion, you must have the commitment, you must share the dreams of your people.'

Heheheh. Why is Mr Wang laughing? Because MM Lee's remarks reminded Mr Wang of one of his old posts.

On a separate note, it's interesting to note that MM Lee used the phrase "foreign talent" here, where PM Lee appeared to have consciously dropped it during his NDP rally speech in favour of "immigrants" and "foreigners".

There are two ways to interpret PM Lee's refusal to use the old phrase "foreign talent" (and they're not mutually exclusive).

The first interpretation is that PM Lee wanted to avoid creating the usual dissatisfactions that Singaporeans often have, when they observe that many of the "foreign talents" in Singapore don't seem particularly talented. The continual use of the phrase "foreign talent" can alienate the masses because there is some implicit suggestion that locals are not as talented.

The second interpretation is that PM Lee hoped that by using the word "immigrants", he could win more Singaporeans over to his foreign talent policy and convince Singaporeans that these foreigners love Singapore and are here to stay and contribute. After all, the large majority of Singaporeans had an immigrant background as well.

What about MM Lee using the phrase "foreign talent" then - how do we interpret that?

Well, firstly, this was in the context of who should run the country. In his mind, it was a given that the person should of course be a "talent".

Secondly, maybe he never agreed with his son dropping the phrase "foreign talent". Mind you, it was MM Lee himself who popularised the term "foreign talent" in the late 1990s. It was a key MM Lee idea that the foreigners we were going to attract were indeed going to be outstandingly talented and just by standing here on Singapore soil, were going to generate a great number of jobs for less-talented Singaporeans.

Thirdly, maybe MM Lee just blurted the phrase without thinking or caring too much about it.

Ah, the dangers of over-reading things.

+++++++++
Technorati: Singapore; politics; foreign talent.

The New 5 C's

Singapore just has a way of boiling things down into simple catchphrases and key words. Here come our new 5 C's - Competitiveness, Cohesion, Compassion, Compact and Choices. The full article is very long, so I reproduce only an excerpt:

ST Nov 4, 2006
Singapore Dreaming: The other 5Cs
Cash, credit card, car, condo, country club. Cliched. Li Xueying, Goh Chin Lian and Keith Lin speak to MPs and observers about the President's Address at the opening of Parliament this week and conclude that it contains the new Five Cs that should matter to concerned Singaporeans.

...........

Taking off from the President's Address, Insight ventures a new take on the Five Cs that ought to matter just as much in the coming years.

1. Competitiveness

FIRST, Singapore needs to survive. How to ensure that it never drops out in a perennial race, not just against other economies, but also can triumph over the vagaries of globalisation?

In his address, Mr Nathan enumerated some factors: a stable political climate, a strong tripartite partnership, the need to embrace talent, both local and foreign, and an outstanding public service.

Beyond these, there is also the need to look ahead and see what can be done to invest in the future: to transform the education system, invest in research and development (R&D), wire up Singapore and so on.

What is key, says Hong Kah GRC MP Alvin Yeo, is the education system.

'Beyond the accumulation of knowledge, we need to encourage and enhance our students' abilities to challenge, question and innovate,' he says.

For instance, the technologies that will be relevant when they start work might not even have been invented yet, he adds.

'As such, it is vital that our people be able to adapt to whatever is relevant in their day, and innovate to find solutions to problems that did not exist when they were in school.'

The re-education of middle-aged Singaporeans is another issue that needs to be examined, says Holland-Bukit Timah GRC MP Liang Eng Hwa.

As for whether the promise of R&D will bear fruit and benefit the ordinary Singaporean, Mr Yeo says: 'Daunting though it may seem for a small country like Singapore to try to be an R&D hub, I feel we really have no choice.

'What we can do is to try and spot niches and growth areas to focus on, and thereby not spread our R&D personnel and dollars too thin.'

But ultimately, says economist Song Seng Wun, it is not about whether enough is being done to keep Singapore competitive.

'That's not the issue. Rather, in the fluid landscape that we're in today, what we should aim to have is the ability to change our policies quickly should circumstances require.'

For now, the Government is doing quite well in seizing opportunities, driven by a 'very strong kiasu/kiasi factor' or a scared to lose/scared to die attitude, says Mr Song.

He cites as example the decision to build integrated resorts. 'From no casino, to two, and now perhaps more. And that reflects the reality of the new world, that nothing is really cast in stone.'

All these must be done, and done now, says Mr Liang, especially now that Singapore is going through an upturn.

He echoes the point made by Mr Nathan, who said: 'When conditions are favourable, as they are now, we must grow as fast as we can. Then, even when conditions are tough, we can weather the storm and help those in need.'

This will mean certain trade-offs.

To get the fastest growth possible, the Government will have to embrace globalisation and foster an environment conducive to global investors, such as lower taxes and an open economy able to absorb talent from anywhere.

Such an approach may well lead further to a growing income disparity, says Mr Song.

'As much as the burgeoning economy creates many more opportunities and people become wealthier, those in the lower-income bracket will not see the same kind of opportunities.'

2. Cohesion

THEY turn up at the Meet-the-People sessions with a stack of unpaid utilities, medical and conservancy bills. They have outstanding payments for housing loans. They have school-going children. They are jobless.

And after being helped, they return again with their problems.

While the number of such cases has not grown much, and has even fallen in some constituencies, say MPs, steps should be taken now in anticipation that the social divide will widen.

Sociologist Tan Ern Ser notes that the Gini coefficient - a measure of income inequality - has grown from 0.49 to 0.52 in the past five years.

The key, say MPs and political watchers, is in striking the balance between helping the needy and having them take responsibility for themselves.

It would not do for Singapore to implement European countries' welfare schemes which erode people's motivation to work and have to be financed with high tax rates.

MP Cedric Foo believes education is the better answer, a conclusion he came to after encounters with needy constituents in his West Coast GRC.

In between listening to the parents' woes and doling out lollipops to the children, he observes the youngsters. 'I can tell they are very bright, but clearly they are disadvantaged by their background.'

That prompted his Citizens Consultative Committee to start a learning club a year ago. About 40 primary school children learn English and mathematics for a nominal fee - or none if they are poor.

Mr Foo hopes to expand the club to cover non-academic subjects like leadership at the Outward Bound School or even ice-skating.

'If we don't invest in these children, it's a problem waiting to happen 10 to 20 years down the road.'

Mr Seng Han Thong, an assistant secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, has his eye on helping older workers. The Yio Chu Kang MP meets residents who are sole breadwinners and have lost their jobs. Worse still, they have little or no savings.

The Government may need to consider more grants like the ComCare Fund to help such people who do not have the right skills for the jobs available to tide over difficult times, he says.

'The challenge is how to help fellow Singaporeans who are going through the low points of their life, to be able to stand on their own and start a new life again.'

Mr Seng believes the help should be comprehensive - from giving temporary financial aid to meet immediate needs, to training for a job.

He recalls meeting a jobless man in his mid-50s some months ago. Mr Seng suggested he try to be a cabby. But the man had to overcome several hurdles: He could not apply for a vocational licence to drive a taxi because of outstanding payments for his Medisave account; he had problems passing his taxi examinations; he had his electricity at home cut because he had no job.

And when he was ready to drive a taxi, he needed to open a Giro account, but had no money to open one.

The MP found help for him through various channels, from the grassroots' welfare fund to the Taxi Academy, which worked with a taxi company to help him.

'We did it because we assessed that he had the will to move on.'

Another group that will need attention is the elderly, as the number of Singaporeans aged 65 years and above is set to double in 15 years.

Mr Phua Kok Tee, the chief executive officer of the Singapore Action Group of Elders, thinks it is important to recognise that while some elderly people may need help, others can care for themselves and should be encouraged to be active and to work.

This requires the authorities to make the environment accessible, from the HDB flat, to the ground floor, to the bus stop and the shopping mall. It means public transport operators should introduce wheelchair-friendly buses more quickly.

It also means employers need to understand that the elderly can still contribute with their skills and experience if given the chance. 'I would like to see many of our elderly take care of themselves and be independent,' he says.

3. Compassion

THE Government may be able to help the lower-income and older Singaporeans. But a society without compassion among individuals is an unhealthy and un`stable one, say commentators.

In his Address, Mr Nathan spoke of many helping hands and reminded better-off Singaporeans of their responsibility to help their less successful fellow citizens.

How? Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Sam Tan, the executive director of the Chinese Development Assistance Council, thinks the Government can lend a hand to encourage more helping hands.

This could be through measures such as granting voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) the required status to collect tax-exempt donations, or continuing double tax deductions for charitable donations.

Ms Jennifer Yee, executive director of welfare group Lions Befrienders, believes the many helping hands approach also requires voluntary welfare groups to cooperate rather than compete for funds and volunteers.

'VWOs have to adopt the common mindset that it is our beneficiaries who should be uppermost in our minds.'

Singaporeans themselves are getting involved. A National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre survey found that 15.5 per cent of residents here took part in at least one volunteer activity in the past year. It was 15.2 per cent in 2004.

Ms Yee holds the view that volunteers need incentives. 'You need to give them something tangible... like something they can learn and put on their CVs or that can enlarge their social contacts.'

MacPherson MP Matthias Yao sees it differently. 'We discovered there is no need for incentives. When they are needed, we are asking for more than what the person is willing to commit. If we ask for something within what they are able, they can be quite charitable.'

Rather than ask for huge, long-term commitments, the way to go is to start small, he says.

4. Compact

WITH a new generation coming to the fore, Singapore will require a 'new social and political compact', said Mr Nathan.

The better-educated and Internet-savvy post-65 generation will 'need avenues to try out their ideas and fulfil their ambitions'. The most successful ones must learn to identify with their fellow citizens, and lend a hand to those in need.

'We must also deepen the sense of mission in this new generation, and provide them more opportunities to take responsibility for our country and build our future together,' he said.

What exactly is this new compact? And how is it different from the compact formed from the past?

Institute of Policy Studies research fellow Jeanne Conceicao says: 'The post-65ers need to work on being more responsible. But what about the Government and other groups? How do they figure in the 'new social and political compact'?

'To many of the post-65ers, greater responsibilities come with greater rights and demands... Is the Government prepared to loosen its controls regardless?'

MP Alvin Yeo agrees that younger Singaporeans will be looking for other things beyond bread-and-butter issues.

'Additionally, they are concerned with the more intangible aspects of society, like freedom of expression, a more vibrant cultural and entertainment scene and availability of choices, including of government!'

Adds Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad: 'The P65 generation will certainly bring changes in the thinking, perspectives, priorities and even values in our community. I think we will see a gradual shift in the way the community expects the country to be run, how the Government engages it, how caring we become as a society and how we cope with the dynamic economy.'

Forging this new compact will be a two-way process, adds Mr Yeo.

'What the Government needs to do is to engage the younger generation on the issues that are important to them, while seeking to retain the benefits of existing institutions and policies which remain relevant today. In the process, both will change.'

Even as expectations of what each side must do change, one basic aspect of the compact will not change: There must be trust.

5. Choices

AS PRESIDENT Nathan noted, Singapore is at another turning point. It has to decide how to move forward as a society, in what direction and at what pace, and how to manage any dislocations that result.

The 11th Parliament with its 84 MPs will play a major role in shaping those choices. As Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say tells Insight: 'The fast pace of globalisation will only get faster. It is bound to lead to very unequal outcomes across economies and societies...

'We must take more care of each other and prepare ourselves for greater global shocks. We must get it right the next five years so that the future Singapore can continue to be one of the most peaceful, stable and cohesive societies in the world.'

The old 5 C's was a very neat description of Singaporeans' aspirations. The new 5 C's ... I dunno. They sound like an attempt by a semi-desperate ST writer to organise a very broad-ranging discussion into a coherent article. These new 5 C's are a bunch of wiffy-waffly abstract nouns and they aren't going to find any permanent place in the collective Singapore lingo.

+++++++++
Technorati: Singapore.

So Let's Wait & See What Happens Next.

ST Nov 3, 2006
More time for 3 accused to view police video

THE hearing against Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and two others for speaking in public without a permit was adjourned yesterday to give them more time to view a police video of their actions.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng yesterday provided DVD copies of the police recording to Chee, SDP member Gandhi Ambalam and party supporter Yap Keng Ho.

The recording, which was made on two digital video tapes, was screened in the courtroom on Wednesday. It showed the trio speaking in a public space in Yishun on April 22 this year.

Chee and Ambalam yesterday told Judge Eddy Tham in the Subordinate Courts that they were ready to cross-examine new witnesses. But Yap said he wanted more time to view his copy of the video evidence before the trial continued.

Judge Tham adjourned proceedings for a day to give Yap the necessary time to review his DVD, and also to allow DPP Lee to amend a transcript of the recording, which will be given to the defendants today.

The trial continues today.

Drama in the Courtroom

ST Nov 1, 2006
Chee's bid to abort trial fails

By Ken Kwek

SINGAPORE Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and party member Gandhi Ambalam have failed in a fresh bid to abort a trial against them for speaking in public without a permit.

Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed their applications in the High Court yesterday.

He noted that their trial, in the subordinate courts, had 'hardly begun' and they should wait until it ended before considering further legal action.

Both men made the application even though party supporter Yap Keng Ho, who is on trial with them, failed in his attempt on Monday, also before Justice Choo, to have the trial aborted.

The trio wanted the trial aborted on the grounds that the investigating officer, who is a witness in the case against them, was in the courtroom and had heard testimony from three witnesses in the opening days of the trial.

They believed that as a witness, Assistant Superintendent Jeremy Koh should not have been allowed to listen to the testimony.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng acknowledged to trial judge Eddy Tham last week that she should have sought permission for ASP Koh to be present. But she also said in response to Chee's accusations that there was 'nothing sinister or unusual' in ASP Koh being there.

DPP Lee Lit Cheng was one of my ex-colleagues, from my DPP days. She has plenty of experience and I am a bit surprised that she slipped up like that. I guess we all get careless once in a while.

The basic rule is that witnesses who haven't given testimony yet shouldn't be allowed to be in the courtroom. That's because we don't want them to hear what other witnesses are saying in court. And the reason for that is that each witness should testify based on what he can recall of the actual events in question, without being consciously or subconsciously influenced by what he has heard other witnesses saying in court.

What about the investigation officer? Many DPPs like the I.O to sit in court, somewhere at the back, because the investigation officer assists as a kind of coordinator and assistant (for example, in getting physical exhibits, making sure that the next witnesses are punctual etc), and also because DPPs can often quickly check with the investigation officer on little points of the case as they crop up in the course of trial.

This is perfectly okay, if the DPP does not intend to call the I.O as a witness (that is, the DPP plans to adduce all the relevant evidence through other witnesses). If however the DPP intends to call the I.O as a witness, the DPP needs to ask the court for permission for the IO to sit in court prior to giving testimony. The DPP also needs to assess whether the nature of the case is such that the I.O's evidence might be contaminated by his hearing what other witnesses say.

In some cases, even if the I.O is to testify, his presence in court beforehand is not really material to the integrity of the case. That's because the I.O, in some cases, is a "formal witness". A formal witness is a witness whose testimony is needed to "complete the legal picture", but who otherwise isn't very significant to the case (his evidence will be non-contentious).

For example, a chemist who tested a urine sample for drugs or a doctor who certified the victim as dead or the police officer who answered a "999" call may often be regarded as formal witnesses. In court, formal witnesses are sometimes completely dispensed with - in other words, they need not come to court at all - because their testimony is really a formality and neither the prosecution, the defence nor the court wish to waste time on them.

As I said, DPP Lee is an experienced DPP and I would not be surprised if there is more than meets the eye. Possibly what happened is that DPP Lee thought that she would not need her I.O to testify and therefore kept him in the courtroom. As it turned out, after the first few days of trial, and perhaps a few surprising turns, it transpired that she did need him to testify. She then called him as a witness, and then Chee promptly seized the opportunity to allege unfairness etc and seek to abort the entire trial.

Just my guess, since I wasn't in court myself.

+++++++++
Technorati: Singapore; law.