Foreign affairs

The dust has settled, or rather the bus decks have been cleared. The “troublemakers’’ are out of the country. I have no problem with booting troublemakers out of the country or into jail – if we are sure that they are troublemakers. And that goes for Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans. The colour of your IC doesn’t matter, It’s whether we do right by other human beings.

So why WERE these 29 bus drivers selected for that one-way ticket home? Rather odd. Going by news reports, some could have been on strike on the first day or second day or both, with or without medical leave….It could mean anyone of the Chinese bus drivers. It was reported that they played a “bigger’’ role – in what way? What did the police uncover? And why were they housed in a prison before deportation when they haven’t even been charged with a crime? As for some of the bus drivers who said they were “coerced’’ into joining the strike – who were the bullies then and why has no one been charged for criminal intimidation?

Many might be tempted to say “leave it be’’. After all, the incident is over and we should be focusing on the big picture, like the role of SMRT, foreigners in essential services, the relevance of trade unions, the causes of industrial action, human resource management. I agree.

But even as we tackle these issues based on the platform that those Chinese bus drivers have given us, we also have to deal with the rights of individuals and the duty of the State. After all, when we work abroad, we’d like to think we want to be treated abroad the way we’re treated at home.

While we are on the subject of foreigners, I was taken aback on reading Han Fook Kwang’s piece on the maid industry needing a cleanup in the Sunday Times. (By the way, that was the headline – which totally killed the supposed surprise element in the introductory paragraphs of the article which asked readers to guess at which industry he was referring to…. )

I was taken aback because of his tone – “If I were the Philippine or Indonesian government, I would…’’ especially as his prescription for foreign governments came after some careful writing on what he thinks the Singapore government should do – abolish the maid levy and set a minimum wage. Of course, he didn’t say this was what he would do “if he were the Singapore government’’.

The column ended with how the citizens of maid exporting countries were paying the price of weak government. I thought this was unnecessary.

Far better to have focused on the origins of the foreign maid levy; how it is different from the foreign workers (intended to make sure local pay doesn’t get depressed), what the levy is now used for and how to ensure minimum wage levels for maids are policed.

Then there was this piece in the Sunday Times on Sunny Verghese of Olam and his efforts to fend off attacks by short seller specialist Carson Block. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t portray him as the white knight charging to the defence of the company he built – just yet. The jury isn’t out on the allegations and counter-allegations.  Perhaps, there is this instinctive need to defend a Singapore company and portray it in the best light?

The above three examples give some food for thought methinks. About our attitudes, consciously or unconsciously, towards those who are “one of us’’ and those who are not.

Dishing out death and drugs

I read the news reports on the parliamentary debate on the death sentence with mixed feelings – which I still can’t quite pin down. I am not against the death sentence for heinous crimes. In fact, I even think paedophiles should be castrated…but that’s a different story.

I think it has to do with who gets to decide who should swing or not. That’s such a heavy burden, whether it’s placed on a judge or on the prosecution. I used to think we should just make the rule books clear, so everyone knows where’s the line that society has agreed to draw.

The rules on who hangs for murder have been tightened. So judges can exercise some discretion over murder cases, where there is no intent to kill. You know, I wonder how many “murderers’’ have been hanged in the past before this change… It will be good to see how many of the six murderers now on death row will be saved by the change.

The prosecution has bigger powers (or a bigger burden). It will decide if drug runners really, really gave good information that will help break syndicates before taking the death penalty off them. So the death penalty is a policy instrument. It is not punishment for the crime but punishment if the drug runner can’t do enough to help prevent another crime. I’m uncomfortable because it’s become a utility tool. I hope when a case like this come ups, the public will be able to see HOW the prosecution exercised its discretion. How substantive must the drug runner’s assistance be to take the noose off him?

We are assured that the prosecution will be very tough on this. The bar will be set high so that the zero tolerance for drugs policy will still hold. For all you know, maybe no one will be off the hook. Or maybe everyone will start spilling the beans. Question: I know other countries have such discretion built into their legal systems, but are there closer parallels that we can examine? Did it lead to a fall in drug trafficking/consumption?

So what else are we doing to tackle the drug scourge. I wish there was more reporting on the Misuse of Drugs amendment Bill. I gather that drug parties will be banned (I’m surprised…always thought they were..) and that there will be heavier penalties for those who target the young and vulnerable. What are they? What’s “young and vulnerable’’ and what proportion of the drug population do they make up?

Another thing I found puzzling: How the G doesn’t want to have a Malay committee targeting Malay drug addicts, even though they form half the offenders. Why not? If the drug problem is such that we considered changes to the death penalty, what’s the harm of having a Malay committee to tackle the community’s problem? It can make better use of language and religion in its outreach, even co-ordinate programmes among the mosques and Malay groups. In fact, wasn’t there some such committee in the past?

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.

Hating hate speech

I’m glad engineer Gary Yue Mun Yew had a heavier book thrown at him for inciting hate. So it’s going to be two months jail for him for suggesting that people here do an Anwar Sadat style assassination during the National Day parade two years ago.
I wish though that ST had more information about why he was originally fined $6,000 only. I turned to Today, which had a shorter story but was longer on details. While ST readers were told only about his Sadat video posted on Temasek Review Emeritus facebook wall, Today said he had also posted another doctored photo of a Vietnamese beheading former Cabinet Minister Wong Kan Seng. Today also said the fine was $8,500 – for both acts.
Why only fine? According to Today…
Convicting him in March, District Judge Low Wee Ping had found that Yue had intended the post to contain an incitement to violence. But he concluded that Yue had not intended to incite violence, as he had made the post out of “angst”, and had been psychiatrically assessed to be “attention-seeking”.
I am glad that the prosecution appealed. Seems to me that TWO acts can’t be justified out of “angst’’ – for crying out loud. Yue even replied to comments, reiterating his stand. Also, you can seek attention in other ways, like posting naked pictures of yourself!
I still wish there was more information on his crime, given how the Prophet video is causing such anger everywhere. Like, did he use his real name? Probably not. What sort of views did he get? How many people responded and did anyone shout him down? What is the responsibility of TRE in all of this? Did it take down the postings or did they remain long enough online to make people angry? The judge said that the extent to which peace had been affected was “low’’. I wonder how he came to this conclusion. Because no one took up Yue’s suggestion?
So we are tough. Excellent. The American who did the Prophet video that is causing such anger and which has led to deaths is sticking to his “I do not regret what I did’’ position. I hope the families of the dead Americans picket his house and demonstrate that they too can exercise their freedom of speech, especially since the American legal system appears powerless to deal with him.
I am all for tightening up on hate speech here. There’s already so much racist invective online that I’m actually wondering when the ISA will be invoked against perpetrators. Not that I wish it. So long as the law is tough and the community objects vehemently to hate speech, there’s no need for such a blunt weapon to exist.
On the subject of penalties, it appears the French system is too weak to deal with the publication of pictures of Kate sunbathing topless. Not so much powerless as toothless. What penalties that can be levelled against the errant magazine is small beer compared to what it will rake in in terms of copies sold.
So your privacy gets invaded – and other people make money. I thought Andy Ho wrote a good piece in ST today on the Protection of Personal Data Bill that will be making its way through Parliament. As he pointed out, Government agencies are exempt. I am horrified to think that someone in the G can put together everything on me if he has a mind to. Let’s hope this issue gets a full airing during the debate.

Don’t hold a sword over our heads

Today takes the prize today. For its comprehensive reporting of a written judgement that touches on that controversial s377A. It provided an extract of the judgment by the three-judge Court of Appeal which throws light on an issue that’s being plaguing the homosexual community – and beyond – for some time. It has to do with criminalising homosexual acts between men.

Those with long enough memories will remember the debate in Parliament on the retention of this clause in the Penal Code and how it was argued as a way to satisfy the views of the conservative majority . To satisfy the homosexual community, the assurance was that it would not be actively enforced.

I’ve always thought this made a monkey out of the law. So the clause is just there for “display” purposes. And everyone is supposed to believe that it would not be “actively enforced”. What about passively enforced, or enforced as a result of a complaint? And why should anyone depend on the executive to decide when he should or should not enforce the law?

So I am glad the courts have entered the picture, although a bit sideways. About a man who was charged originally under s377a and then got the charge substituted to one which would fit the “crime” so to speak, since the first was not supposed to be “actively enforced”. This, btw, is my layman’s intepretation.

 Here’s what the court said about ”no proactive enforcement” which was what was promised in Parliament.

 This, they said. is of “totally different complexion from ―no enforcement”. No Minister has gone so far as to state that there will be no enforcement of s 377A. The phrases ―active‖/―proactive‖/―vigorous‖ enforcement are broad phrases which can comfortably bear a spectrum of meaning. At one end of the spectrum, the lack of active enforcement may suggest that the police will not charge consenting adult males who engage in homosexual activities in private, whatever the circumstances. At the other end, it may simply mean that the police will not purposely seek out adult males who carry out such activities with a view to charging them, but if they happen to come across such activities being committed or if they receive complaints of such activities, they will then arrest and charge the relevant persons under s 377A. One can conceive of a situation where a neighbour of a homosexual couple calls the police to lodge a complaint that offences under s 377A are being committed in the privacy of that couple‘s home. In such a situation, if the police respond to the call and proceed to arrest and charge the couple under s 377A, would this be ―active‖ enforcement, or ―reactive‖ enforcement? If it is the latter, it will not be covered by the statements in Parliament.

I really don’t care about the issue of homosexual sex at all. I am more perturbed that there are laws which the executive can pick and choose to chase after someone. Sure there is prosecutorial discretion – but I never heard anyone say, Don’t worry, go do your own thing. We’ll turn a blind eye, we assure you. It was in my view, the oddest parliamentary debate I have ever heard.

Here’s what the judgement said…

…there is nothing to suggest that the policy of the Government on s 377A will not be subject to change. Just as the AG cannot fetter his discretion on policy matters, the Executive cannot fetter its discretion on the same. Ministerial statements in Parliament on policy matters do not invariably bind a future or even the same government. The Executive‘s discretion to determine policy remains unfettered and it has the right to change its policy with regard to the enforcement of s 377A. Therefore, as long as s 377A remains in the statute books, the threat of prosecution under this section persists, as the facts of this case amply illustrate.”

Nor was this something “fanciful” as the police had issued “stern warnings” in the past on the matter to individuals, the court noted. Unless those stern warnings are masak masak, (me talking this) why issue at all if no threat of prosecution if further “violations” occur?

No point reading ST on this. It’s buried in the Home pages. And is merely a backgrounder. Go read Today. It’s on Page 1 and has a good extract as well.

Boat Quay in the dock

I have to say that I thought ST’s Page 1 story today on cleaning up Boat Quay a little strange. So auxillary police are going to be patrolling the area soon to discourage touting. You mean, they haven’t been? Or are we making a distinction between auxillary and “real” cops? With Boat Quay always in the news for bad news, you would have thought the men in blue were walking around every night. I mean, there are even cameras there to keep out undesirable activity. Maybe they HAVE been patrolling, but not to discourage touting? You mean, the nice restaurant owner can’t go up to the tout and say stop doing this – because they risk being punched or knifed?

Another thing, what is touting? So those women/men at the front of restaurants aren’t supposed to say “Come try us?” Okay, I know touting turned aggressive is terrible for those who just want a quiet walk. But hey, they add some colour. I think tourists quite like the idea of touts – or have they been complaining. What is aggressive touting – when they start manhandling you, I suppose? I draw the line there.

More important, is Boat Quay unsafe? I mean, the phrase is “clean up”. So whats the crime rate like? Those cameras aren’t working to deter criminals and make for a safer environment? Waste of money then?

The story, in journalistic parlance, is a bit thin.

Then there is this thing I have about revenue/business figures. So often we see phrases like business/sales/revenue/profit  is down 60 per cent in the last one/two/three years. If I were a tenant, I would pluck any figure out of the air to get my landlord to get rents down. Especially if I am not using my name or the name of the restaurant (as is the case in this article). Down 60 per cent from $1m three years ago? Or $100,000? Maybe the three years ago was an anomaly. In any case, you think any businessman is going to open his books for verification? I think a much better way is to see if the restaurant is full – or empty. And ask what it was like in the past. Easier for the reader to relate to such matters that they can “see”,  rather than a 60 per cent of goodness knows what base figure from three years ago.

So, here’s to a sanitised, safer and quieter Boat Quay, with plenty of men-in-blue walking around. Not sure that I’ll enjoy it. But then again, I’m weird.