Moral policing?

I rather enjoyed reading The Sunday Times’ article on Singapore’s top cop, Commissioner Ng Joo Hee. He seemed to have led an exciting life, policing Liverpool matches, sitting in a black-and-white in Los Angeles with an American beat cop (ate doughnuts!) joining the British inspectors for a course in the UK. Then of course, peace-keeping missions in Cambodia and setting up the police Special Tactics and Rescue or Star unit with former members of the British Special Air Service.

So exciting, I thought. Then I got down to the last few paragraphs of the article:

Another battle he fights, aside from crime, is corruption, which he addressed in a recent message to his officers, saying: “From the moment we choose to wear police blue, we also choose to live by a special code.”
It is the same code which he believes former colleague Ng Boon Gay broke when he was charged and put on trial for corruption last year.
“Boon Gay has been found not guilty… but certainly his acts are reprehensible,” he says. “He has broken every one of our values and he has tainted the whole police force by his behaviour and that is very disappointing.”

Now, I wonder why it was necessary for him to say that about his erstwhile colleague (or is Mr Ng still on the force?). Perhaps, he was asked for his view and sought to give a politically correct answer. Sure, policemen must not and cannot be corrupt. And if Mr Ng (the Commissioner) wants to give examples, there are plenty he could have chosen from, outrightly guilty officers who want sex from prostitutes in return for not turning them in for some crime to those convicted of taking under-table money. But Mr Ng (the ex-CNB chief) was singled out for mention instead, although as the Commissioner noted, he was not guilty by law.

By describing Mr Ng’s acts as “reprehensible’’ and that he broke a police code, I suppose the Commissioner meant that Mr Ng should not have been engaging in a sexual dalliance with a woman who is not his wife – or with another man’s wife.

I suppose I can understand a code which says that a policeman should not commit adultery with another policeman’s wife. I can even understand, even if it is not a good thing, if policemen believe they should protect their own (obviously this is not the case here). And I would definitely rather that the police code embraces a value like, every crime is worth our time (rhymes too!) An honour code that I believe exists among soldiers is to leave no man behind – not bad at all. Then there is a journalist’s code to get to the truth without fear or favour – which can be pretty tough to uphold.

In this case, we are talking about a policeman, not a priest. And when we say we want a “good’’ cop, it means we want an able person who enforces law and order. I am not sure I care if the cop indulges in something on the side; but I would care if a cop is slip shod in his investigations, turns a blind eye to some crimes, thinks some types of crime are not worth his time and can’t crack a case in his whole career. I would care if a cop’s work is not up to scratch so much so that a wrong person gets convicted or if he clearly took a bribe to let someone off the hook.

So Mr Ng had an affair and the court seems to agree it was just that – an affair, whether loveless or not. Seems gratuitous for the Commissioner to weigh in after he’s been cleared.

Mr Ng’s past – he probably has a similarly exciting story to tell like the current commissioner – seems to have been forgotten, like he’s an embarrassment. I wonder how many drug syndicates he’s busted, and how many criminals he’s put behind bars while he headed up the Criminal Investigation Department. I wonder if he received any medals in his career. The man dashed his career with his sexual indiscretions not because he was corrupt. He should have, to use a police term, covered his tracks properly (Maybe that makes him a bad policeman?)

In light of his reply on Mr Ng, the Commissioner was asked if his stand was that every police officer must be beyond reproach. He said: “The public expects it and that’s why this is more than any ordinary job. You want to do this job? It’s different, it’s tough.”

How he came to this conclusion on the expectations of the public, I don’t know.

You know, I can (more or less) understand political parties giving philandering members a wide berth, to the point of prompting an election. We are rather more conservative than other countries which give even presidents with a wandering eye (and hands) a pass. That’s because political parties campaign on a platform of moral integrity. I doubt that policemen signed up to be politicians and priests.

In any case, I don’t suppose the Commissioner, in describing Mr Ng’s acts as a taint on the force’s reputation, will be embarking on a “clean-up’’ exercise to police the moral standards of his men.
But if he does take action, good luck to him then. I wish him all Herculean strength.

Sex is about contact, not contract

Another day, another sex scandal? Right after ex-CNB chief Ng Boon Gay’s acquittal comes the trial of ex-SCDF chief Peter Lim, who looks like he’s shrunk a few sizes going by new photographs of him in court.

Intriguingly, the star witness, Ms Pang Choi Mui, the woman on the other end of the gratification equation was pushed further down the line of witnesses. Because, the prosecution said, both sides, including defence, could not have “the signposts in this case confirmed” So some disagreement between both sides on the facts of the case.

I suppose the prosecution is thinking real hard about how to make sure that she wouldn’t flip flop on the stand, as Cecilia Sue did over the Ng Boon Gay trial. You know what? I wonder how many bodyguards will be assigned to her. I wonder what else will come out about how CPIB does its work. Truth to tell, the CPIB interrogators came across as pretty sloppy in the Ng Boon Gay case.
So what’s the difference between this case and the last?

a. Seems two other women were involved in the Peter Lim case, but they will be dealt with as separate cases

b. Looks like Lim had a bit more to do with the SCDF tender project under the spotlight because Ms Pang apparently got more “insider’’ information before the tender was even called. Still, her subordinate at Nimrod Engineering says it was normal to go sourcing for stuff before the tender specifications are out.

c. Mrs Peter Lim was NOT in court.

Going by reports on the first day of the trial, the prosecution and the defence seems to be repeating the arguments that were made in the Ng Boon Gay case. I love the way the defence counsel referred to Lim’s indiscretions: “His only wrongdoing here is the commission of a physical encounter.’’

We’re all probably wondering whether details of the physical encounter will be laid out in all its lurid glory, like the last time. Times, dates, places, text messages, phone calls, emails and types of physical activity. We’re all voyeurs, I suppose. (Pssst! It was carpark at Stadium Walk.)

But the more important issue is the application of the law with regards to corruption. The prosecution in the Ng Boon Gay case has asked for the full grounds of decision from the court which I take to mean is a full explanation of why he was acquitted. Only then will it decide whether or not to appeal. So Mr Ng is not off the hook yet. I read the oral judgment of the case: at 32 pages, it seemed pretty full to me. But then, I’m a layman.

What I have always wondered about the case is this question of “corrupt intent’’. I have always thought a person is innocent until proven guilty but it seems this is not true for corruption cases. Once you receive something from someone connected with you in some business way, it is considered “gratification’’. Then to satisfy the “corruption’’ bit, you have to show that you never thought the “gratification’’ came with strings attached (I’m putting it simply).

I thought this would be pretty tough for Mr Ng to rebut but the judge believed him. He was a far better witness than Cecilia Sue, although I guess detractors would say a cop on the stand, ex-CID chief some more, would know how to deal with pesky questions from prosecutors.

Here’s what the judge said: “Thus, although only the intention of the accused behind the instances of fellatio is relevant for the purposes of this trial, I found that both Ms Sue’s and the accused’s intentions were innocuous in giving and receiving the fellatio. I found that the instances of fellatio took place in the context of an intimate relationship. I accepted the accused’s evidence and found that he had no ulterior motive in obtaining them.’’

The judge also added that while there was a “conflict of interest’’, this doesn’t automatically mean you are corrupt.
I’m glad Mr Ng got off. Because if he didn’t, I wonder how many more civil servants would have to be hauled to court, maybe not for sex but for receiving a watch, a pen or a paid-for dinner. Of course, I doubt the CPIB would willy-nilly trot out all and sundry. But big-time civil servants in high profile jobs had better watch out lest they be made an example of to scare the minor ranks to toe the line.
The next question regarding Mr Ng is whether he will be restored to his old job, which I believe should be the case under civil service rules. But seems like the Home Affairs ministry wants to take a crack at him with disciplinary proceedings. Will the public get to know what happens? Will Mr Ng crack and voluntarily resign for bringing the institution into disrepute or something? Mr Ng said he runs to keep himself sane over the past year.

I think he should keep on running.

PS. Please read earlier post Eaten already or not. Or just go to http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg

The case of the philandering parliamentarian

Okay, so who’s the woman? I sound like a tabloid journalist, I know. But, hey, everybody wants to know who’s the PA staffer who caught Michael Palmer’s eye. The works, please. Everything about the Palmer marriage as well. With pictures. Can the media oblige?

I am assuming there’s no unwanted interference from up above. And I am asking in the spirit of fairness vis-à-vis the Yaw Shin Leong affair of not too long ago. One thing, I am glad about… so far online media has labelled it an extra-marital affair and not some euphemism like “indiscretion’’.

I sound terrible. Like some bloodsucker from now-defunct News of the World. But everyone deserves “fair’’ treatment or the media will be unfair. Yaw Shin Leong must be laughing his socks off somewhere now that the boot is truly on the other foot…and it’s finally dropped. On the PAP.

I suppose the defence the PAP will come up with is to compare not the two ex-MPs, but the way the two parties approached the issue of a philandering parliamentarian. Like, Palmer admitted it and said sorry. Like, we worked faster, even called a press conference. Like, we quickly made plans on how to “cover’’ his duties. Like, we know Michael Palmer; he’s no Yaw Shin Leong.

Then again, I suppose Workers’ Party would be pretty quick too to go on the attack. Who would be able to resist it? It shows that despite whatever the PAP says about itself, the men in white aren’t so spotless. Like, what did the PAP say again about its selection process compared to ours? Like, he ain’t just an MP, he’s the Speaker of Parliament, for crying out loud! Like, we were tough and sacked Yaw, Palmer quit with your blessings. Like, when’s the by-election?

Gosh. Could Singapore be having yet another by-election? Seems to me the PM is in a pretty difficult position. Never mind that we sorted out this question of whether holding a by-election is at his discretion – it is. The fact is that the Hougang BE set a precedent. A single-seat ward was vacated by a sitting MP, not a GRC slot where the excuse for not holding one would be that the other GRC MPs can cover his duties.

Of course, the Hougang ward did not belong to the PAP and it was therefore a prime opportunity for the PAP to get it back from the WP. Palmer vacated Punggol East, yet another single seat ward, but this time belonging to the PAP. It wouldn’t look good on the PM at all if he exercised his discretion to NOT hold a BE there. Even if he argues that he’s already assigned Teo Ser Luck to look after constituents. (BTW, the PAP has quite a handful of full-time MPs now – why not one of them?)

I’m sorry that this has happened to Palmer, who overturned the conventional wisdom that a non-Chinese would not be able to carry a single-seat ward. Well, he did and he should be a poster boy for the Abolish GRC brigade.

I am sorry that this happened to Singapore’s Speaker of Parliament, because he should have a stricter code of conduct than the parliamentarians he presides over, and because he represents the Singapore Parliament to parliamentary delegates from other countries. I am not sure but I think he sometimes doubles up for the President as well…

I am most sorry for his wife and kid. When men are naughty, their women suffer. Just ask Mrs Ng Boon Gay.

A short take on sex

Again a teacher, female as well. And the boy is in primary school! Reached puberty yet or not?  Okay, I am going to be crude here so don’t read on if you are sensitive: I suppose its sex with minor only and not with “corrupt intent’’? I mean, he didn’t get better grades or a choice spot in a secondary school or something, right? I don’t know how the CPIB thinks these days.

Well the law professor’s case is coming up – and that seems to be a sex-for-grades case. Don’t get me wrong. It’s bad if a teacher has sex with a student – they can always wait right till the student graduates. But it would be interesting to see what a legally train mind in the dock can bring to bear on this whole issue of sexual gratification, coming right after the Ng Boon Gay trial.

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…

Swinging the other way

ST had an interesting column today on the three missed opportunities in the population debate. The three:
a) No one wants to talk too much about the plight of SMEs who suffer a shortage of manpower especially with the squeeze on foreign workers. Many want to re-locate.
b) Not many want to assert the old Singapore must be No.1 maxim, going for break neck economic growth to outpace competitors. Even past advocates now sing a different tune.
c) Not many, including new immigrants, want to talk about the benefits of having foreigners in this country.
It’s so strange. It used to be that speaking for fewer foreign workers was anathema given that going for slower growth was taboo. Making noises about immigrant influx was likely to be countered heavily too. The counters came from officialdom and ministers. That being the case, what they said carried weight. I reckon people decided that it was better to keep quiet than to think carefully about whether their words had “holes’’ which should be pointed out and debated. The “robust’’ response that is the habit of the G achieved its objective of keeping people in line. Now the opposite is true. We’re hearing more of the other side of the conversation. It’s a pity because some arguments – maybe not all – for the “old ways’’ could still valid. It’s just now politically unpopular to say that we need more foreign workers, more immigrants and should grow as fast as we can. Does anyone want to risk being flamed?
I am not in favour of more immigrants and would not mind sacrificing a percentage point or so in growth to achieve social harmony. But then again, I hope I am not so obtuse as to close my ears to countervailing points and arguments. The pendulum cannot swing so far the other way. That’s no way to conduct a reasoned debate. If there’s one thing the Singapore conversation should be clear about, it is to ensure that even unpopular views (by that, I mean the G’s point of view, I’m afraid) should surface. Sometimes, I find that the “defending’’ is all being done by the G and those who repeat or espouse the views are immediately labelled lackeys. Speaking for the establishment is not trendy.
It might be worth asking how it’s come to this point. I would suggest that it’s all due to what I described earlier as the habit of robust response that the G is so proud to proclaim. With its superior intellect, extensive information and multiple platforms, when it talks, it outshouts all others. That’s the trouble with a strong G; even clever people are in awe. And those who are not clever but think they have a legitimate grievance don’t have the words or the information to argue a point. They know getting emotional is irrational. And no one wants to lose face. This is too small a country to find a private place to lick your wounds after being lambasted or even gently chided. We are so thin-skinned.
I don’t know what the Singapore Conversation is suppose to achieve given its current unstructured format. From what the G has let fall, maybe we shouldn’t set our expectations too high. Maybe it’s just an ideal we are reaching for rather than concrete policies. Like achieving 6 million people in Year X. In this case, what is the Singapore Conversation suppose to achieve in Year X, whatever that might be?