Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
24 January 2012
25 laps
06 July 2011
Until human judgment is infallible
It has been »widely reported that the current President Nathan stated last year that he can only grant pardon from the death penalty "on" the advice of the Cabinet. That is, a President has no discretion - the Cabinet decides, the President signs.
The operative paragraph is para 22P of the Singapore Constitution which states:
Grant of pardon, etc.
22P. —(1) The President, as occasion shall arise, may, on the advice of the Cabinet —
(a) grant a pardon to any accomplice in any offence who gives information which leads to the conviction of the principal offender or any one of the principal offenders, if more than one;
(b) grant to any offender convicted of any offence in any court in Singapore, a pardon, free or subject to lawful conditions, or any reprieve or respite, either indefinite or for such period as the President may think fit, of the execution of any sentence pronounced on such offender; or
(c) remit the whole or any part of such sentence or of any penalty or forfeiture imposed by law.
(2) Where any offender has been condemned to death by the sentence of any court and in the event of an appeal such sentence has been confirmed by the appellate court, the President shall cause the reports which are made to him by the Judge who tried the case and the Chief Justice or other presiding Judge of the appellate court to be forwarded to the Attorney-General with instructions that, after the Attorney-General has given his opinion thereon, the reports shall be sent, together with the Attorney-General’s opinion, to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet may advise the President on the exercise of the power conferred on him by clause (1).
Per »Siew Kum Hong's analysis, I agree that this has to be read in conjunction with para 21 of the Constitution, a few paragraphs up from para 22P:
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
(2) The President may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions:...However, Siew implicitly argues that para 21 contains an exhaustive listing of all the decisions that the President has discretion to decide. Since the death sentence pardon in para 22P falls outside of para 21, there is no discretion allowed.
I disagree on this last point, for para 21(1) states "except as provided by this Constitution" not "except as provided by this paragraph". It is not beyond the shadow of doubt for me that para 21 necessarily precludes discretion of the President in para 22P.
My question is why para 22P uses "on the advice of the Cabinet". Why has para 22P not used "in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet", which would have left no room for doubt? In my mind, one interpretation of "on the advice" could be that the President has to necessarily seek counsel from the Cabinet before granting a pardon and give weight to its advice. But he or she may not necessarily end up acting in accordance to it.
There are only two possibilities as to why para 22P does not use "in accordance with": (a) the draughtsman did not give too much thought; (b) it was deliberate. Either is possible, but in all likelihood, (a) is the more probable case. (If you have seen how lawyers work and the kind of time pressure they are under, it will not come as a surprise.)
If the draughtsman didn't give too much thought, the onus then falls upon the judiciary to interpret it in a reasonable way. Sim Kum Hong and the Court did not think that there was room for any other interpretation. »M Ravi thought there was and proposed the very attractive doctrine of legitimate expectations. It was however defeated in court.
It is not an outcome I like. I can accept it if President Nathan did not want to grant the case at hand (Yong Vui Kong, for drug trafficking) a pardon. In fact, I have often explained to people that we cannot run a country if we keep granting ex post exceptions. It is however very dissatisfying to see President Nathan deflect his personal burden of saying no by instead creating a constitutional interpretation that Presidents have no discretion to grant clemency. It further begs the question of whether past pardons are constitutional, if it turns out that past Presidents somehow did not act in accordance with the Cabinet "advice". If I were one of the seven lucky people in Singapore's history who managed to receive a pardon from past Presidents, I would be very worried.
But the law is the law, and the letter of the law has failed the popular expectation of what it is supposed to do. The only thing we can do now is to change it.
My attention turned onto the issue of pardon recently because of the compounded effect of the mandatory death sentence. I have seen those three words many times in the last 20 years, but did not fully grasp its full meaning until a week ago. Mandatory death sentence does not mean "a maximum penalty of death sentence". In the specific case of drug trafficking, it means simply this: if you are in possession of more than x grams of drug y, the public prosecutor is obliged to push for the death sentence and the judge is obliged to sentence the same. There is no gray area, no extenuating circumstances, no judicial discretion in prescribing something other than death sentence.
This is my understanding of how »Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act works. I would love to be told that I am wrong, but it is unlikely.
All these come together to mean the following: if you are caught with more than x grams of drugs, and you are unable to rebut the presumption that you have knowledge of it, the presidential pardon is essentially the only hope. However, we are now faced with the situation that the decision for this pardon lies not with the President, but with the Cabinet who is most unlikely to diverge from the stance of the public prosecutor.
We cannot allow both to exist in our system for the simple reason that the British MP Sydney Silverman has put so elegantly in 1948 -
Until human judgment is infallible, we have no right to inflict irrevocable doom.
05 July 2011
Powers of the Singapore President
With the Singapore Presidential Elections around the corner, I decided to see if the Singapore President is really as powerless as is often believed.
I was pleasantly surprised by what the Constitution contains. If the President wants to make a credible job of earning his keep, he in fact has the constitutional power to do a number of things. It is already well known that he is supposed to safeguard the reserves. What I was not aware is that he also has veto power over the appointments and budgets of statutory boards and Government companies. Even more importantly, he can veto detention or further detentions under »Part XII of the Constitution. This would include detention without trial, a colonial remnant still retained in Singapore and Malaysia laws.
So, there are perfectly good reasons to choose your candidate carefully. Did you also know that the President enjoys immunity from suit for actions arising from his official capacity? This immunity can only trumped by a tribunal convened by the Parliament against him.
For those who enjoy legalese, below is the overview paragraph of the President's functions. The right to grant pardon from the death penalty is not there, because it is in paragraph 22P. I will discuss 22P in a separate post because its language and recent events left me confused as to the exact powers of the President.
I was pleasantly surprised by what the Constitution contains. If the President wants to make a credible job of earning his keep, he in fact has the constitutional power to do a number of things. It is already well known that he is supposed to safeguard the reserves. What I was not aware is that he also has veto power over the appointments and budgets of statutory boards and Government companies. Even more importantly, he can veto detention or further detentions under »Part XII of the Constitution. This would include detention without trial, a colonial remnant still retained in Singapore and Malaysia laws.
So, there are perfectly good reasons to choose your candidate carefully. Did you also know that the President enjoys immunity from suit for actions arising from his official capacity? This immunity can only trumped by a tribunal convened by the Parliament against him.
For those who enjoy legalese, below is the overview paragraph of the President's functions. The right to grant pardon from the death penalty is not there, because it is in paragraph 22P. I will discuss 22P in a separate post because its language and recent events left me confused as to the exact powers of the President.
»CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Discharge and performance of functions of President
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
(2) The President may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions:
(a) the appointment of the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 25;
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for a dissolution of Parliament;
(c) the withholding of assent to any Bill under Article *5A, 22E, 22H, 144 (2) or 148A;
*Article 5A was not in operation at the date of this Reprint.
(d) the withholding of concurrence under Article 144 to any guarantee or loan to be given or raised by the Government;
(e) the withholding of concurrence and approval to the appointments and budgets of the statutory boards and Government companies to which Articles 22A and 22C, respectively, apply;
(f) the disapproval of transactions referred to in Article 22B (7), 22D (6) or 148G;
(g) the withholding of concurrence under Article 151 (4) in relation to the detention or further detention of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of Part XII;
(h) the exercise of his functions under section 12 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A); and
(i) any other function the performance of which the President is authorised by this Constitution to act in his discretion.
18 May 2011
The TPL phenomenon
When I was 6, there was once when I had to choose between staying over at my aunt's place or going to Sentosa the next day with my cousin. I still remember that day very clearly. I was babysat by my aunt, very close to her and her family, and did not want to go back to my parents' home that Friday. My mother gave me a choice: stay over, or forfeit the Sentosa trip. She warned me, sternly and a few times, that I could only choose one.
The desire for immediate gratification being urgent and immediate the way they tend to be, I told her I wanted to stay over. I thought that I would be able to convince her the next day to let me go to Sentosa if I begged hard enough.
The next day, I begged, begged and begged. She did not relent. I cried my eyes out. She did not relent. I think I even skipped lunch in profuse tears after I saw my cousin leave the house. She did not relent. The family thought it was rather harsh of my mother, but still my mother dug her heels in.
That day, I learnt that when you choose, you have to live with your choice.
I therefore have some bones to pick with the whole TPL phenomenon. The rules of the elections were very clear - when you vote, you vote in a party of four. It is all or nothing, and there is absolutely no ambiguity about that. You cannot say that you only want one of the four, because it is not the rules of the game. If one were so unhappy with the GRC rules, one should have been more active in lobbying for the change instead of leaving it to others . If one were still that unhappy, then one would simply have to vote against that entire team and/or go on a crusade to convince residents in Marine Parade. There is no two ways about it, and that is the way life is.
For this reason, I did not sign any petition calling for the resignation of TPL (or for the re-election of CST for that matter). I cannot say at all that I have been impressed by TPL, but the people of Marine Parade have chosen for themselves, and consequently for Singapore. To give another analogy, if you knew your boyfriend has a pesky mother, then it is a case of caveat emptor before you marry him. I think it would be unreasonable to ask him to disown his mother after you are married.
In response to my objections, some people have countered that even if TPL has been democratically elected, she should still step down in light of the public displeasure against her. Should she? To be fair, the only two things she has done wrong is to have posted those kawaii photos and silly suggestions about holding down hawker prices down . She has not committed any grave offences, whether civil or criminal. There is doubt in her ability to deliver (in which case you should have taken that into account when you voted), but I am not aware of any tenable reason for her to resign.
What seems to have happened is that a mob has gathered against her. Unfortunately, mobs are not driven by logic but by the adrenaline of the moment. She has, not out of her conscious choosing, become a celebrity like Paris Hilton. Not a celebrity politician, but a celebrity whose existence is to entertain a bored public. It is a difficult starting point to be in, but I hope for our future in the next five years that she overcomes it. At the very least, the TPL phenomenon will clearly remind us that when we choose, we have to live with our choices. Or to put it in more blunt terms: citizens in a democracy deserve the government they have.
The desire for immediate gratification being urgent and immediate the way they tend to be, I told her I wanted to stay over. I thought that I would be able to convince her the next day to let me go to Sentosa if I begged hard enough.
The next day, I begged, begged and begged. She did not relent. I cried my eyes out. She did not relent. I think I even skipped lunch in profuse tears after I saw my cousin leave the house. She did not relent. The family thought it was rather harsh of my mother, but still my mother dug her heels in.
That day, I learnt that when you choose, you have to live with your choice.
I therefore have some bones to pick with the whole TPL phenomenon. The rules of the elections were very clear - when you vote, you vote in a party of four. It is all or nothing, and there is absolutely no ambiguity about that. You cannot say that you only want one of the four, because it is not the rules of the game. If one were so unhappy with the GRC rules, one should have been more active in lobbying for the change instead of leaving it to others . If one were still that unhappy, then one would simply have to vote against that entire team and/or go on a crusade to convince residents in Marine Parade. There is no two ways about it, and that is the way life is.
For this reason, I did not sign any petition calling for the resignation of TPL (or for the re-election of CST for that matter). I cannot say at all that I have been impressed by TPL, but the people of Marine Parade have chosen for themselves, and consequently for Singapore. To give another analogy, if you knew your boyfriend has a pesky mother, then it is a case of caveat emptor before you marry him. I think it would be unreasonable to ask him to disown his mother after you are married.
In response to my objections, some people have countered that even if TPL has been democratically elected, she should still step down in light of the public displeasure against her. Should she? To be fair, the only two things she has done wrong is to have posted those kawaii photos and silly suggestions about holding down hawker prices down . She has not committed any grave offences, whether civil or criminal. There is doubt in her ability to deliver (in which case you should have taken that into account when you voted), but I am not aware of any tenable reason for her to resign.
What seems to have happened is that a mob has gathered against her. Unfortunately, mobs are not driven by logic but by the adrenaline of the moment. She has, not out of her conscious choosing, become a celebrity like Paris Hilton. Not a celebrity politician, but a celebrity whose existence is to entertain a bored public. It is a difficult starting point to be in, but I hope for our future in the next five years that she overcomes it. At the very least, the TPL phenomenon will clearly remind us that when we choose, we have to live with our choices. Or to put it in more blunt terms: citizens in a democracy deserve the government they have.
10 May 2011
03 May 2011
27 April 2011
蔚蓝的天
我的小国再过两周就要投选了。身在大国的我近几天看了许多政治评论、许多人物专访、许多国民的心声感言，觉得特别亢奋。原来新加坡人还是有血有肉的。就凭此，我的小国将前途无量！
Camera-phone series #27. This is the Chilterns on a summer day, »somewhere near the Whipsnade lion.
21 February 2011
Sunning the keropok
This is why I prefer HDBs to bland condos.
I can eat a whole basket of these btw. Move over, English crisps!
Camera-phone series #23.
01 February 2011
The name of this toad
Walking past the foyer of Hyatt Hotel, the mother complained, "TSK. Why is this car so noisy? Like a toad croaking."
Me: "Mother, the name of this toad is Ferrari..."
(And so it is true that a Ferrari is only nice if you are the one in it!)
Me: "Mother, the name of this toad is Ferrari..."
(And so it is true that a Ferrari is only nice if you are the one in it!)
23 September 2010
Singaporeans I met today
A nurse at the hospital, who proudly told me that her son is studying in London too. "Imperial College," she beams.
A blind man selling tissue, who probably has been standing for hours. He greeted me cheerfully and just before I left, said: "It's raining you know. You have umbrella?"
A Malay taxi driver, who told about his family history as we crawled through a jammed CTE. "My grandfather was Chinese also. Guangdong Province, he was a Muslim from Guangdong Province."
Our lives, our history, our dreams.
A blind man selling tissue, who probably has been standing for hours. He greeted me cheerfully and just before I left, said: "It's raining you know. You have umbrella?"
A Malay taxi driver, who told about his family history as we crawled through a jammed CTE. "My grandfather was Chinese also. Guangdong Province, he was a Muslim from Guangdong Province."
Our lives, our history, our dreams.
31 August 2010
01 August 2010
Mr Tiwari
On 26 July 2010, Mr Tiwari passed away. I want to say 'suddenly', but I suppose there is no such things as 'sudden' when it comes to death. Regardless, it left me in great shock the rest of that day and lingering sadness for the rest of my Munich-Salzburg trip.
Mr Tiwari was the »Principal Senior State Counsel of Singapore and helmed many of our international negotiations. He was the king of UNCLOS (UN Convention on Law of the Sea) and the man for bilateral issues with our immediate neighbours. He was recently a WTO panellist for the US-China intellectual property rights dispute and was re-invited by Pascal Lamy to be a panellist for the US-Mexico tuna dispute. I had the good fortune to work under his tutelage on several investment guarantee agreements in my career.
He was one of those old-school bosses - all for the nation, serious about work, and fatherly outside it. He was very senior in the government, but did not think himself too senior to commute by MRT or invite us junior staff to his house for Deepavali. He cut a familiar figure in the ASEAN circuit with his Gandhi-like stature, round glasses and signature black backpack.
When I came back from Shanghai, he organised lunch among a couple of us. After lunch, he and I walked side by side. The rest were behind. He wanted to hear what I thought about China. As I talked, he listened on humbly and intently, and we exchanged views as equals. Such rare humility, I remember thinking. I did not even know at that time that he was the one who drafted the agreement that established our diplomatic relations with China.
When I later wanted him to write my recommendation letter for London, I went through a boss to ask him as I was worried that he might feel bad about saying no. When I formally dropped him a note, he replied,
"Dear Joanne
Will work on this. Not sure why you thought about my saying "no". I will surely help as far as I can .
regards
S Tiwari"
When I explained that he had worked with so many officers over the years and might not remember me enough to write a reference letter, he returned a feisty and touching reply:
"Surely the girl in Shanghai must have made an impression for me to organise a welcoming lunch!"
This, is the Mr Tiwari I remember.
Post-script: Ms L wrote a lovely tribute of him - read it »here.
Mr Tiwari was the »Principal Senior State Counsel of Singapore and helmed many of our international negotiations. He was the king of UNCLOS (UN Convention on Law of the Sea) and the man for bilateral issues with our immediate neighbours. He was recently a WTO panellist for the US-China intellectual property rights dispute and was re-invited by Pascal Lamy to be a panellist for the US-Mexico tuna dispute. I had the good fortune to work under his tutelage on several investment guarantee agreements in my career.
He was one of those old-school bosses - all for the nation, serious about work, and fatherly outside it. He was very senior in the government, but did not think himself too senior to commute by MRT or invite us junior staff to his house for Deepavali. He cut a familiar figure in the ASEAN circuit with his Gandhi-like stature, round glasses and signature black backpack.
When I came back from Shanghai, he organised lunch among a couple of us. After lunch, he and I walked side by side. The rest were behind. He wanted to hear what I thought about China. As I talked, he listened on humbly and intently, and we exchanged views as equals. Such rare humility, I remember thinking. I did not even know at that time that he was the one who drafted the agreement that established our diplomatic relations with China.
When I later wanted him to write my recommendation letter for London, I went through a boss to ask him as I was worried that he might feel bad about saying no. When I formally dropped him a note, he replied,
"Dear Joanne
Will work on this. Not sure why you thought about my saying "no". I will surely help as far as I can .
regards
S Tiwari"
When I explained that he had worked with so many officers over the years and might not remember me enough to write a reference letter, he returned a feisty and touching reply:
"Surely the girl in Shanghai must have made an impression for me to organise a welcoming lunch!"
This, is the Mr Tiwari I remember.
Post-script: Ms L wrote a lovely tribute of him - read it »here.
13 June 2010
A city like this
7.15 pm on a summer Saturday, Bus 55 chugged merrily along. Somewhere near Goodge Street, I stopped daydreaming.
A lady standing on the pavement was earnestly pleading with the bus driver with many variations of 'Please, pleeeease wait, she is coming right now'. Presumably an old folk.
A pause. About twenty pair of eyes waited to see who it was.
But suddenly, the bus started moving. Everyone let out a hugely disapproving 'Ohh!'.
It was so disapproving that the person standing nearest to the bus-driver had to defend him: 'He's just pulling over to wait for her.'
And then a collective 'Ahh'.
Three seconds later, the heroine stepped up onto the bus. The punkish-looking teenage girl nearest to the entrance stood up from her seat.
(I have great respect for punkish-looking folks; they are often the most decent people.)
When I'm 70 and walk like a snail, a city like this is where I'd like to be.
Clarification: London is not the city like this. I'm happy to say I've written several letters over the years (often prompted by my mum) to commend bus drivers in Singapore for their kindness. One particularly stood out. He didn't just stop and wait. He got out of his driver seat, helped the shakey 80-year-old passenger to a seat then got back in to drive on.
A lady standing on the pavement was earnestly pleading with the bus driver with many variations of 'Please, pleeeease wait, she is coming right now'. Presumably an old folk.
A pause. About twenty pair of eyes waited to see who it was.
But suddenly, the bus started moving. Everyone let out a hugely disapproving 'Ohh!'.
It was so disapproving that the person standing nearest to the bus-driver had to defend him: 'He's just pulling over to wait for her.'
And then a collective 'Ahh'.
Three seconds later, the heroine stepped up onto the bus. The punkish-looking teenage girl nearest to the entrance stood up from her seat.
(I have great respect for punkish-looking folks; they are often the most decent people.)
When I'm 70 and walk like a snail, a city like this is where I'd like to be.
Clarification: London is not the city like this. I'm happy to say I've written several letters over the years (often prompted by my mum) to commend bus drivers in Singapore for their kindness. One particularly stood out. He didn't just stop and wait. He got out of his driver seat, helped the shakey 80-year-old passenger to a seat then got back in to drive on.
03 January 2010
A shrimp paste and salted vegetable life
To describe a hard life, you liken it in my country to the lowest of everyday food, i.e. belachan (Malay for shrimp paste) and 咸菜 (Chinese for salted vegetables).
Hence, nasib belachan and 咸菜命 (typically pronounced as 'giam chai mya' in the Hokkien dialect as salted vegetables is common to Hokkien dishes.)
Both are delicious by the way. Ooo, I am just six weeks away from them!
Credit to the very funny Ms A for sharing her phrase.
Hence, nasib belachan and 咸菜命 (typically pronounced as 'giam chai mya' in the Hokkien dialect as salted vegetables is common to Hokkien dishes.)
Both are delicious by the way. Ooo, I am just six weeks away from them!
Credit to the very funny Ms A for sharing her phrase.
26 October 2009
Poppy appeal
I haven't seen this poppy in probably 20 years. Out of the blue, I saw it last evening at the Russell Square tube station when I was coming back from the airport.
It reminded me so strongly of my childhood that I went back to the station today to donate and get one from the veteran. I can still remember that particular day in my childhood: it was a sunny Saturday afternoon, my mother had gotten off work and my dad must have dropped me off at her office in the Collyer Quay area. I was no more than five or six - she was holding my hand and we were walking. Along the way, she must have stopped to donate something towards the »poppy appeal - I don't recall too clearly, probably because I was too short then to notice. But I did remember holding a poppy in my hand and walking off together into the afternoon sun...
The poppy has not changed much from that day - still the same crinkly red paper and black button, except it is now adorned by a leaf.
The same cannot be said for the other two protaganists.
16 October 2009
Bogeymen
»William Safire and »Far Eastern Economic Review, the twin bogeymen of Singapore in the early 90s, are both dead.
08 September 2009
Plate galore
Location: At the same »Bright Hill temple in the last post. Camera-phone series #16.
If you are wondering why a temple needs so many plates, it is because it is one of the few temples known to provide free food, twice a day, on a DAILY basis. The other one that I know is the »Buddhist Lodge, off River Valley Road.
On certain special days, there will be literally thousands of people passing through either of these temples, and invariably, stopping by for lunch or a drink. The massive amount of food is a sight to behold. It is also free for all, not just for devotees (nobody cards you or anything before serving you the food, and in fact, please help yourself to a second serving), so that is good news for nearby construction workers or the homeless. The menu even changes every day. When I went to Bright Hill Temple yesterday, I also saw a number of taxis parked there. Times must be hard; taxi drivers are not particularly known to be vegetarians.
I remember asking my mum when I was young, "Won't the temple go bankrupt this way?" (I know, what an economist...) My mum confidently replied, "No it won't. In fact, the more it cooks for people, the more stock it ends up with."
After 20 years of empirical observation, I have to admit that it is true. I imagine this can only be explained by a virtuous cycle theory. If you are next in the area, pop by Bright Hill Temple or Buddhist Lodge for a look (and a prostration as well if you are so inclined).
P.S. Bright Hill temple is more civilized; Buddhist Lodge is more spectacular with its sacks upon sacks of rice, bee hoon etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
