Language lessons

Sometimes I get asked: What’s a leading question? Now, I have got plenty of examples: The Ng Boon Gay trial. The prosecution and defence counsel are asking leading questions. Allowed in a court of law. So wonderful! In my past life, I’ve had to refrain from leading questions because a smart answer would be: What are you trying to get me to say? Do you have an agenda?

Of course in court, both sides have an agenda. Anyway, here are some techniques if you ever find yourself in a position of being able to ask leading questions.

a. Use an aggressive tone. In other words, intimidate
b. Use double negatives. In other words, confuse
c. Use a dictionary. In other words, look erudite.

I don’t know what you think but I thought the Ng Boon Gay trial was very educational for language students.

What’s the difference between actual and perceived conflict of interest, for example? What’s the difference between routine (sex) and on-and off (sex)? Is gratification the same thing as satisfaction? What is lust and what is love? To be fair, I haven’t seen the word lust used in newspaper reports, just part-time lover and main sex partner…And of course, the ultimate killer: Define DIY.

I’m getting tired of the trial. We’re trying to define matters like corrupt intent and physical intimacy. It’s all about “feelings’’ this trial is. I just want to say: Leave it to the judge to look at the facts, and not the feelings and let’s see the end of this sorry, sordid spectacle playing out every day.

So ugly

WARNING: This post is not for children, virgins and saints
I’ve followed the Ng Boon Gay case pretty closely as well as many other court cases involving sex but I can’t recall a time I’ve felt as uncomfortable as today.

The court is already trying to grapple with this question of corrupt intent – and now it has to deal with what is love? Sheesh. If the prosecution is a representative of the State, then I dread to think that the state views trysts in a car as NOT love, not going to a hotel to make out is NOT love, declining overseas trips or dirty weekends is NOT love. Actually, it’s no business of the state…and I certainly hope this view isn’t being perpetuated in schools and civics lessons.

And what’s love got to do with it anyway? It’s an extra-marital affair that’s been going on for some time (according to the defence) or which had stopped (according to the prosecution). They are both adults and it seems like we are watching them in some kind of B-grade teen flick with questions like Do you love me? On a scale of one to 10?

I remember the prosecution making clear that it wasn’t about to police morals, so I guess the prosecution’s defence of its line of questioning is that it was forced to choose this tack to unpick the defence’s case that they were having an affair. I mean, the prosecution even got Ng to define DIY. (If you don’t know already, you shouldn’t be reading this).

It’s all so ugly.

So ugly that I’m beginning to lose sight of what the case is about. I gather the question turns on whether a public servant should receive anything, anything at all, from someone he or his organisation might, or already have, business dealings with. Never mind if nothing actually pans out.

Actually, it sounds like something that should be in some instruction manual for public servants. In any case, whichever way the court rules, I wonder how extensively that manual or code of conduct (so many these days…) would have to be re-written.

Gratifying the senses but not the sense

The newspapers went to town with the Ng Boon Gay sex scandal. Predictably. But from a reading of all the English newspapers, I think BT had the best report. Because it “joined the issues’’. So ST and TNP went with all the salacious details, with not very much on what the prosecution and defence locked horns over. Today was too general.

I guess titillating reading always sells but I got quite jaded with all the details of carparks and intimate encounters in enclosed spaces. My feelings go out entirely to Ng’s wife and Sue’s absent husband. I really hope the prosecution has a good case or it would merely have afforded the public a good sexy scandal that would irreparably damage all the parties concerned – with nought to show for it…

Anyway, looks like the court thinks Ng has a case to answer, going by the judge’s brief remarks that there is “some evidence, not inherently incredible, that satisfies each of the elements in all four charges’’. I wish people won’t use double negatives…what’s “inherently’’ incredible anyway?

The reason I liked BT’s reporting is because it told me things the others don’t have. Like how the prosecution took issue with the defence submission that the oral sex was not “completed’’ and hence, no “gratification’’ occurred. It was more like “frustration’’. You know, I always thought defence counsel was being facetious when he made the point before the trial broke…Seems it’s deadly serious.
I had to read both ST and BT for the works though.

Defence: She didn’t complete it. So there was no gratification. Instead there was frustration.
Prosecution (who quotes from Oxford dictionary): Gratification isn’t linked with satisfaction. (this is based on ST reporting)
Defence: If she didn’t complete it, it shows she never expected something in return. (this is based on BT reporting)

BT also reported a “celebratory’’ lunch by Sue for Ng to toast some contracts she won with CNB and NCS. After which Ng propositioned her. The prosecution said this showed a link between sex and contracts. Defence said this was a “distinct shift’’ from prosecution position that there was no need for there to be link to say that Ng is guilty of corruption.
BT also reported prosecution talking about Sue rejecting clandestine rendezvous, including a trip to Macau. Ng said that he was the one who turned the trip down.

The prosecution also referred to other official witnesses who said that Ng should have declared conflict of interest and recused himself from decision making. Defence thinks that’s making quite a leap from non-disclosure to corrupt intent.

Anyway, what am I doing??? Go buy BT.

Uncomfortable questions

I have been waiting to hear about Cecilia Sue’s bodyguards for some time so I was glad when defence counsel Tan Chee Meng asked what they were all about on Thursday. Pretty generous of the state to supply her with bodyguards. Anyone would think she was a witness testifying against a mafia boss, rather than the former head of CID and CNB. (It’s Ng Boon Gay who should be protected against the unsavoury types he might have put behind bars…).

Pity Mr Tan – and the rest of us – got no satisfaction. He asked some pretty pointed questions and had this response thrown at him – that he was casting a slur on the integrity of the profession. I don’t know how many times in my past life I have had the same accusation thrown at me. It’s almost as if nobody should ask questions, in particular embarrassing questions, if the answers don’t paint the said institution in a good light. In fact, the guardians would demand that those questions should NOT even have been asked in the first place, much less published.

Thank goodness, this is an open court case. So questions – and answers – can be fully reported. Unless of course someone pulls a stunt to protect the institution’s doings from public scrutiny because the work it does is so hush hush and could be compromised if too much is known. Thank goodness too, there was no such gag order.

Even if the prosecution doesn’t answer some of Mr Tan’s questions on the CPIB’s practices (because they are irrelevant, not by the book or whatever), it behoves the CPIB to do so because one of its own has admitted in court that some practices were “unusual’’. Maybe later, after the case is over, to avoid prejudicing the court.
I can wait some more.

What I was pleased to read today that someone who raised a question of public interest – whether the PM could decide on his own when to call a by-election – will not be out of pocket.

The Hougang housewife (even if she was acting as a proxy for others as some may speculate) doesn’t have to pay $10,000 in legal costs to the prosecution even though she lost her application to have the matter heard in court. The judge said she was pursuing a matter of public interest and the current mode of paying winning party shouldn’t apply in her case. Also, she wasn’t doing this for some personal gain.

The courts made an exception.

Wonderful!
Because no one should be penalised for asking the courts to clarify matters which are being extensively debated. If she had to pay money, you can bet no one is going to attempt something like this again. Cynics will simply say that they have no hope of winning a case against the executive, and what’s worse, losing is monetarily painful to boot.

Practices made public

A bit odd when you come to think of it: the investigative practices of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau was the subject of interrogation in court over the Ng Boon Gay-Cecilia Sue affair.

Since we’re not supposed to comment on how the CPIB fared on the stand, I’ll just confine myself to some curious practices of the Bureau so that anyone who has to lim kopi with the officers will know what they are in for:

A. Seems it takes ages for officers to get down taking a statement. Like 11 hours. Maybe this is normal practice, you know, to “soften’’ up a witness before formal recording. I hope they gave Ms Sue a loo-break.

B. It’s not just one person who takes a statement. In her case, there were four. Maybe this is normal practice too: good cop, bad cop, fat cop, thin cop?

C. The person who interviews is not the person who does the recording. In fact, sometimes the person who does the recording even mistakes the person who did the interviewing. Like how recorder Mr Khoo said it was Mr Teng who did the interviewing but Mr Teng said it wasn’t him. Which makes you wonder if the CPIB has lookalikes that confuse even their own staff.

D. Even the recording officer can ask questions it seems, not necessarily the interviewer. Like how Mr Teng said the recording officer could have asked why Ms Sue changed her position on when her relationship with Ng is supposed to have ended.

E. There is a thing known as a station diary. Seems like it’s for officers to put in side notes. It’s reliable. Or rather NOT reliable since sometimes officers forget to put in a critical NOT. Like how Mr Teng wrote that Ms Sue said she will (NOT) take a polygraph test.

F. CPIB officers are quite nice. They share your concern for your family and the effect of media publicity. They even suggest ways to minimise adverse impact.

What’s the net result of this all? Nope, not saying a thing about how CPIB fared….but it does tell you that if you ever get called for an interview with CPIB, you should empty your bladder, ask to see the IC of every recorder and interviewer and get their names right, ask what’s going into the station diary and whether the officer missed out critical NOTs. And ask about how you can avoid media publicity. Doesn’t always help but you can always try I suppose…I do NOT suppose you can smuggle in your own tape recorder…

The art of lying Part 2

Here’s a DIY list on how to manage court appearances and handle questioning:
a. Remove all traces of yourself online to prevent CSI-types from piecing together anything incriminating about you.
b. Move house.
c. Change jobs. In fact, it’s preferable to remain unemployed for a while.
d. Not enough to delete SMSes. Throw away your phone. Burn your SIM card.
e. Get your other half to come to court. And to smile no matter how bad the going is for you.
f. Stare ahead when you walk in and out of court, preferably behind Fendi sunglasses.
g. Never eyeball your accuser. You might like him.
h. Don’t answer leading questions. For example, “So you admit you had sex with him?’’ Reply: “That, Sir, is a penetrating question. But it is also a leading one.’’
i. Don’t fall into traps. For example, “I put it to you that you were willing to have oral sex with him. Reply: “Sir, I have already said I was very vocal in my objections.’’
j. Get help from a higher authority. For example, “Your Honour, I am the victim here.’’
k. Plead confusion and mental instability when caught out on a lie. Add that you are off your meds for bipolar disorder.
l. Accuse the cops of intimidation. For example, “They turned the aircon up, questioned me for 60 hours without food and drink. Worse, I had Facebook withdrawal symptoms. ’’
m. Blame the media for biased reporting. Add that they didn’t photograph your good side.
n. Get some bodyguards to fend out pesky media and nosey gawkers. Four or five would be good. Taller and bigger than you. With sunglasses. Preferably paid by the state.

The art of lying

Seems the only place you can safely call someone a liar is in court. You can’t even do it in Parliament; you risk getting hauled up before its Committee of Privileges. Try doing it in public and you have got to get your facts right or face a defamation suit. So Cecilia Sue is being called a liar, again and again. Liar is not a term people use freely. You can call someone stupid, an idiot, a bitch…but liar really hits hard.
I don’t want to refer to the Ng Boon Gay and Cecilia Sue case. Her testimony is so riddled with contradictions that the only “safe’’ thing I can say is that she is one confused woman up against a pretty tenacious lawyer with a good memory. It’s hard to lie or get your story straight when you have to confront someone face-to-face. Far easier to do so on the phone or via email.
I have been conducting classes on interviewing skills in university and I always get asked how to tell if someone is lying. Frankly, I think too often, we tend to take people at face value and we’re just so glad to get responses that we prefer not to think that we could be lied to. In my past life, I’ve had occasions when newsmakers lie – and then promptly tell the truth the next day. That’s not because they have been caught out in the lie but because they were adhering to some time-line on when they should say certain things. Then I feel terrible about having swallowed the lie and having published it for the rest of the world to read the next day. That’s because the lie is extended to so many more people – and the liar doesn’t care. “Company policy’’, “Boss say cannot’’, “Please understand’’, “My hands are tied’’ – those are usual excuses that newsmakers give for lying. But what does it do for the reputation of the journalist whose name is in print? My own philosophy then was to make sure I say the person said this yesterday, and is saying this today, and here’s why he lied – without using the word of course. Which OF COURSE gets the newsmaker riled up. But it’s also a reflection of something else – the journalist being lied to wasn’t good enough at his or her job to ferret out the truth in the first place.
So I really envy defence counsel Tan Chee Meng. He gets to grill his “newsmaker’’ face-to-face and on the record too. He doesn’t have to contend with “cannot quote me’’, “this is for background only’’ or worse, “this is off-the-record’’ that I had to deal with in my previous life. There’s something we, I mean all of us, can learn from this exchange – always talk to people face-to-face. That’s what I keep telling class participants who are more used to talking on the computer than talking to a person. You can get the visual cues, the instant response, the body language and gauge the tone of voice. You get more “signals’’ to the brain than just mere text that has been prepared beforehand. Even if you are not a journalist, isn’t this a better way to engage someone?
But you know what I found out? It’s no point talking face-to-face if you are not good at thinking on your feet…The questioner needs questions and the ability to process responses on the spot that might lead to more questions…and maybe the truth will out. Talking it over with my class participants, they came up with this theory: They are so used to asking questions via email that they can no longer deal with the myriad signals that come from a person they talk to face-to-face. So those responses are “clouded’’ and the brain takes even more time to process the signals and come up with an appropriate question. I don’t know if there’s any scientific study on this but it’s real interesting…
Are we talking more? Or less? We’re talking more. On Facebook and all. But I think we’re more interested in telling people what we did or think than in engaging in anything more in-depth than a pithy, witty, sarcastic exchange. I am generalising of course. At least, I hope I am.

An unproductive time

What’s the job of the news media? It’s to make sense of what people are saying, put stuff in perspective and tell me what’s important. I read and re-read ST’s piece today on MOM Minister Tan Chuan Jin’s blog and kept wondering what’s the point he’s trying to make…After all, did he already say most of these things in Parliament before? Or is there some new nugget somewhere? All that mass of numbers – all to show that the G is on “the right track’’? I was having a very unproductive morning. I was wondering if I should whip out my calculator and see if there was more to the figures on WP, S passes etc and decided, in my laziness, that I should just see if Today did a better job. It did. And it also helpfully provided me with what Tan Chuan Jin said in his blog in its comment pages. ST didn’t do the minister any justice, I thought. What I found intriguing is the higher absolute numbers of Spass holders.
From January to June, the number of work permits for low-skilled workers increased by 20,600 – largely due to foreign construction workers – and S Passes for mid-skilled workers grew by 14,200. Employment Passes for managerial or executive-level foreigners contracted slightly by 700 – the first half-yearly reduction since 2009 when a recession hit.

The “strong growth” in S Passes is likely due to companies using them to bring in more junior-level professionals, managers and executives now that Employment Pass requirements have been tightened, said Mr Tan. “We are taking a close look at this group,” he wrote.
In Parliament, he had talked about the higher rejection rate. Seems this rate isn’t translating into lower absolute numbers, which is what people want to see. Makes you think there’s a loophole somewhere. Can’t get EP so see how to smuggle them under SPass?
Then of course, there is all this talk about raising productivity. When I hear about our productivity being so low, I keep wondering if we’re lazy or stupid. We’re not right? Anyway, MOM’s Tan went on in his blog about some Hotel scheme to allow workers to train to straddle different jobs. I wonder if this is one of the 160 schemes offered by the G to help firms raise productivity. I mean, 160???? So if there are so many schemes and we still so unproductive, what does it mean? The whole thing is too confusing for SMEs? If I were an SME boss, I’d apply for as many as possible – like a welfare shopper. Or maybe I will find myself strangled by red tape. As a taxpayer though, I wonder if agencies are duplicating each other in their efforts. Time to prune the tangle, as is now being done for welfare cases, so that the agencies will be more productive in their productivity efforts?

I had two other “unproductive” moments:
a. Having to read PM on page 1 of ST. It’s exhortation and dragged out to make a story. Seems a better news story is further inside, on how retail investors can now have a better shot at subscribing to a company’s IPO.
b. Having to read TNP’s Cecilia Sue story. Yesterday, it rehashed the whole court case albeit with a nice concept of Victim/Vixen and a piece on the court gawkers. There’s another piece on the gawkers today….Enuff already. Just tell me who those burly guys around her are!!!!

What’s the case about again?

I say, can someone remind me again what Ng Boon Gay is supposed to be charged with? Seems like all we’re getting is sexy, salacious details of whether he did or she did and what they did or did not do. Thank goodness that TNP had two paragraphs to tell me what this case is all about.
The prosecution said on Monday that where a public servant obtains gratification – from a person who has or seeks to have business dealings with the Government, he is presumed to have done so corruptly. Even if the public servant is unable to make good on the favour sought, all that is needed is for him to believe that the gratification is offered as an inducement.
From reading the first line, if any civil servant receives a pen or pencil or oral sex or intercourse from someone who has business dealings of any sort with the GOVERNMENT, (gosh….how many people would that be?) then he or she has already fouled up. I suppose the G would say of course we wouldn’t consider a pen or pencil as a “gratification’’ (unless it’s a designer pen that the philandering professor receives from his ex-student), so please trust us to make sure we prosecute right. That’s the problem isn’t it? Laws are framed so broadly that you don’t even know if you could be doing something wrong. By that first line, Ng Boon Gay is kaput.
Then comes the second line on whether he returned the favour or not. Apparently, he said something about having a couple of hundred thousand left in the budget, which Cecilia Sue said “helped’’ . I must say defence counsel Tan Chee Meng was pretty good in his cross-examination, so good that even more men have been named and a certain mysterious Linda….and Cecilia Sue got totally confused about when Ng told her what about the budget.
What about this clause “all that is needed is for him to believe that the gratification is offered as an inducement’’. I guess we have to be mind readers now.
I suppose the defence strategy is to show that Cecilia Sue wasn’t all business with contracts on her mind. That is, she didn’t offer gratification as an inducement. Nor was she the unwilling party worried about not getting contracts if she said no. That is, she didn’t acquiesce to offering gratification because she felt threatened by Ng. I don’t want to go into subjudice territory, go read the newspapers to make up your mind if this was a willing buyer/willing seller relationship – they all have the same details.
BTW, can someone in the media find out who are those burly men who surround her in and out of court? Cops? Hired bodyguards? Big-sized friends?

PS. This TNP pix is priceless….Just look at the wife!