In his letter, Dr Fones said: “I reviewed Mr Ravi on Saturday 14 May in my clinic following concerns expressed by his friends about his recent moods and behaviours.”

Mr Ravi has confirmed that the date – 14 May – is wrongly stated by Dr Fones. It should be 14 July instead.

Indeed, Mr Ravi had gone to see Dr Fones because his law firm partner, Ms Violet Netto, was concerned that Mr Ravi was feeling the pressure of the workload he was bearing. Ms Netto, according to Mr Ravi, had asked him to see if he needed for Monday’s court hearing to be adjourned. If so, he would require a doctor’s letter to give to the Court.

On Saturday, Mr Ravi went to see Dr Fones who`gave him a letter, if he needed to provide it to the Court. “I said I don’t need any letters for adjournment and I am shocked that a letter was written,” Mr Ravi said. Dr Fones also told Mr Ravi that he could go back to him if required and provided Mr Ravi with the letter. Dr Fones basically said Mr Ravi is under a lot of stress and that he may not be able to attend Court. In effect, it was a medical certificate.

On Sunday, however, Mr Ravi was already feeling better and felt he could attend Court on Monday, which he did. Dr Fones’ letter to the Law Society, however, said Mr Ravi “is having a manic relapse of his Bipolar Disorder” and added that Mr Ravi “is currently unfit to practice law and his illness is likely to affect his pro&essional capacity.” Dr Fones letter, noticeably, was written in the present tense, although he had seen Mr Ravi two days prior.

Dr Fones letter was dated 16 July 2012 which, incidentally, was Monday, the day the hearing into the by-election case took place.

According to Mr Ravi, Mr Chong seemed disinterested in what Mr Wong had to say at first. Both parties then proceeded to Court to submit their arguments on the case at hand, the PM’s discretionary powers on by-elections.

Mr Ravi made his submissions, followed by Mr Chong. However, before Mr Chong spoke on the by-election issue, he informed the Court that there were certain matters to be addressed in Chambers before he proceeded.

Justice Philip Pillai, the presiding judge, asked Mr Ravi if he had anything to raise in Chambers. Mr Ravi said he had none. The judge then proceeded with the hearing and Mr Chong went on with his submissions on the by-election case.

After the proceedings had ended,  Mr Wong – the Law Society representative – asked to address the Court. Justice Pillai then called all parties into Chambers where Mr Wong argued why Mr Ravi should not be allowed to continue with the case.

Justice Pillai, who was reported to be upset with Mr Wong’s intrusion into the Court room earlier, said that the behaviour of Mr Wong was “unprecedented” and admonished Mr Wong and the Law Society for it. He asked Mr Wong if Mr Ravi currently had a valid practising certificate, to which Mr Wong answered affirmatively. The judge said that was the only thing he was interested in and said since Mr Ravi had a valid certificate, he was free to act in Court.

“Justice Pillai made clear that the Law Society had nothing in the day’s proceedings,” Mr Ravi told publichouse.sg and TR Emeritus.

In the afternoon of the same day, an associate from Mr Ravi’s law firm was representing Mr Ravi in another case in a separate Court involving another client. The Law Society too tried to get that Court to halt proceedings on the same grounds, that Mr Ravi was unfit to practise – even though Mr Ravi was not in Court for that hearing. The judge dismissed the Law Society’s arguments and allowed proceedings to continue.

According to the Legal Professions Act:

“25C.—(1) If the Attorney-General or the Council is satisfied that a solicitor’s fitness to practise appears to have been impaired by reason of the solicitor’s physical or mental condition, the Attorney-General or the Council (as the case may be) may apply to a Judge by originating summons for`an order that the solicitor submit to a medical examination.”

No such summons had been filed by the Attorney General or the Law Society for Monday’s hearing.

It is however unclear if Dr Fones’ action of providing his diagnosis of Mr Ravi’s alleged medical condition to the Law Society is because Mr Ravi had given his permission for the doctor to send his medical reports, henceforth, to the Law Society, following an earlier case in 2008. In August that year, Mr Ravi was ordered by District Judge Carol Ling to submit himself to “psychiatric evaluation” at the Institute of Mental Health, after the Attorney General had received the Court's approval to compel Mr Ravi to do so.

When asked about this, Mr Ravi said there were conditions on how the doctor could divulge information of his medical evaluation and to whom. The doctor could only do so after he had examined him and after Mr Ravi had seen the report. Also, the report was to be made known only to his law firm partner, Ms Violet Netto, and Mr Ravi’s younger sister. Neither was informed of Dr Fones’ diagnosis before the letter was sent to the Law Society on Monday.

Moreover, Mr Ravi said Dr Fones had seen him for only 10 minutes on Saturday, and thus questions if that is enough time for the doctor to assess him and to say that he had had a "relapse."

Mr Ravi maintains that he is well and that this was ev)dent in his behaviour in Court on Monday. He says that the fact that Justice Pillai allowed him to continue with the hearing and to make his submissions showed that there was nothing wrong with him.

Also, he said, the Court room was packed in the gallery with members of the public who would have noticed if he had acted unusually. He also questioned why, if he was having a relapse as Dr Fones claimed, were his law firm and family not informed, and why only the Law Society was informed about his alleged conditions.

Finally, Mr Ravi asked why Dr Fones had not prescribed him any medication, if his diagnosis was a serious one.

Mr Ravi said the Court and the Law Society had been fed “wrong information”, referring to Dr Fones’ letter. He described what Dr Fones had written as “ridiculous.”

“He did not examine me today,” Mr Ravi said on Monday.

He also referred to Dr Fones’ claim that Mr Ravi’s “friends” had expressed “concerns” about Mr Ravi’s behaviour. “I do not know which friends they are,” Mr Ravi said, “because I’ve asked Violet Netto, who is my associate. If at all anyone should complain, it’s her. [But] she said she had not spoken to anyone. So this is really out of line, to damage my character and reputation.”

Mr Ravi admitted that he “is a little stressed” but added that this was not unusual and that this was understandably so as he has been involved in many cases” of late.

“To set the record straight, I am well,” he said. “The public saw my performance, the judge definitely was with me.”

Indeed, a member of the public seated at the public gallery – Mr Ng - felt that Mr Ravi had conducted himself professionally and had not noticed anything wrong or unusual about the proceedings, he told publichouse.sg.

Mr Ravi has been involved in death penalty cases for 10 years and is recognised as Singapore’s most eminent human rights lawyer. His most prominent capital cases include those of Nigerian Amara Tochi and Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, who currently sits on Singapore’s death row. A week ago, he was invited by the United Nations rappoteurs on the death penalty to a consultation in New York where Mr Ravi gave his views on Singapore's use of the death penalty. The rappoteurs' reports will be presented to the United Nations' General Assembly later this year.

On Tuesday, Mr Ravi goes back to Court for a pre-trial conference, to act on behalf of Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking an injunction from the Court to stop the Singapore Government from providing loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of the IMF’s plan for the Eurozone. Mr Jeyaretnam is arguing that the Singapore Government was in breach of the Constitution by not first having sought the approval of the elected president and Parliament.

As for Monday’s case into the PM’s discretionary powers in calling by-elections, Justice Pillai has reserved judgement.

“I love Singapore, I love my people,” Mr Ravi said. “That’s the reason why I am here despite all odds.”

---------------

Here's a 3 minute interview we did with Mr Ravi on Monday afternoon:

{youtube}gJjqxSca8FQ|600|450|0{/youtube}

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

3. HOME continues to support the Taskforce in its efforts to combat trafficking and has repeatedly encouraged the government to take positive steps towards meeting international standards for the prevention of human trafficking. Through its submission to the public consultation on the NPA in February 2012, and also through its participation in the Joint Civil Society Statement in response to the NPA in April 2012, HOME has urged the government to:

i) Accede to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and other relevant international law instruments, such as the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and ILO Conventions No. 111 and No. 189;

ii) Enact and enforce specific anti-trafficking in persons legislation which addresses each of the four priority areas of prevention, prosecution, protection and partnership;

iii) Adopt a victim-centred approach which prioritises the development of a comprehensive victim assistance programme; and

iv) Engage fully with those countries of origin from which trafficked persons arrive in Singapore in order to ensure a coordinated response, preferably through the entry into bilateral agreements, to the challenges presented by human traffickers.

4. HOME notes the response of the Taskforce to the TIP Report which was issued on 13 July 2012. In this response, the Taskforce sought to clarify what it considered to be “inaccuracies and misrepresentations” in the TIP Report. Based on its own experiences of working with trafficked persons in Singapore, HOME submits that this response does not, in return, present an accurate assessment of the current situation in Singapore, and makes the following comments:

i) Repatriation of Workers: In response to the TIP Report finding that employers’ ability to repatriate workers at any time during their contracts has fuelled workers’ fears of being “deported”, the Taskforce stated that in the event of employment termination, employers are required to give notice of termination in line with the provisions in the employment contract or, if such provisions are not present, in line with the notice requirements under the Employment Act. HOME considers the fears of workers regarding termination and deportation are very real and should not be discounted. The notice periods in the Employment Act are grossly insufficient. For example, employers only need to give one day’s notice, or one day’s salary in lieu of notice to workers who are in employment for less than 26 weeks. Moreover, employers have the unilateral right to cancel work permits without informing the worker in advance. There are no safeguards against this which makes them vulnerable to overstaying and hence, arrest and deportation. Domestic workers are not even covered by the Employment Act, making them even more vulnerable to arbitrary terminations and deportation. HOME has seen many cases of domestic workers whose employers have attempted to repatriate them with only a few hours’ notice, claiming that the provisions of the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations (the Work Passes Regulations) grant them the right to repatriate upon termination and cancellation of the work pass. Further, MOM does not assist workers in cases where it is their contractual rights which have been violated provided there has been no violation of the Work Passes Regulations. This leaves domestic workers with no other realistic avenues of redress, given the expense involved in pursuing a civil case against their employers for contract violation and also the lack of any right to remain in Singapore following the cancellation of their work pass.

ii) Payment of outstanding salaries and moneys prior to repatriation: In its statement, MOM has emphasised that under the Work Pass Conditions, employers must ensure that all outstanding salaries and moneys are paid to foreign employees prior to their repatriation. HOME urges MOM to provide figures on employers who were prosecuted and taken to task for cancelling work permits without paying their workers. While it is good that MOM has a working arrangement with the Immigration Checkpoints Authority (ICA) for workers with employment grievances, the main issue facing workers who are terminated before their contract expires, is that they do not have effective redress for unfair and wrongful dismissals. The workers’ problems and grievances go beyond just ‘outstanding salaries and moneys due to the foreign employee’, and MOM has failed to address this. Further, the current system relies upon those workers with grievances taking the initiative to raise their concerns with ICA officers before departing from Singapore. HOME’s concern is that not all workers will be aware that this option is available to them, and/or they may fear further reprisals should they raise such concerns at the point of departure. More pro-active action should be taken by the government to ensure that all such grievances are acknowledged and appropriate and sufficient opportunities for redress are made available and known to all foreign workers.

iii) Role of In-Principle Approval letters: MOM states that it has “improved its effort to educate foreign workers on their employment rights and avenues to seek help” through the issue of In-Principle Approval letters (IPA letters). HOME has seen many foreign workers who have only received the English versions of their IPA letters, and/or incomplete versions of the letters, because these letters are printed and issued to the workers by the employment agents or employers. Hence, this measure is not effective at all, especially when the employer and/or the agent has the intention of deceiving the workers. IPA letters are also not contracts with no effective means of enforcement. HOME is concerned that worker’s grievances will not be resolved simply because information is made available to them. Many employers of construction workers also wrongly declare the worker’s salary in the IPA letter; when the worker informs his employer that the employment terms printed in the IPA letter is not accurate, and is different from what was promised, the employer may either dismiss his concerns or tell him to return to his country if he is not satisfied. The law offers no protection to the worker when this happens. Education and orientation has to be paired with disincentives and penalties for employers who insist on violating Singapore’s labour laws. There should also be effective mechanisms for redress, which are sorely lacking at the moment. This is something which HOME urges MOM to address.

iv) Employment bars on foreign workers: MOM has rebutted the claim in the TIP Report that Singaporean employers can submit complaints about worker behaviour to impose future employment bars on them, stating that only MOM has the authority to impose such employment bars where foreign workers have been found to have infringed Singapore laws and regulations. HOME’s concern is that while employers do not possess the powers to place employment bars on workers, they have considerable influence on MOM to do so, and this needs to be addressed. Employers may lodge police reports and submit negative feedback about workers and MOM may blacklist them based on such feedback. This method of blacklisting is unjust because the workers are often no longer around to respond to the employer’s negative feedback and allegations. Many employers also use the threat of “blacklisting” to discourage workers from lodging complaints.

v) Referral of MOM cases to the police: In response to the statement in the TIP Report that whilst MOM had conducted inspections of repatriation companies and employment agencies, particularly for passport withholding, it had not referred any leads to the police for investigation and prosecution for trafficking, MOM states that it had itself determined in all cases that elements of labour trafficking were not established and police referral was therefore not necessary. HOME notes with concern that repatriation companies have still not been outlawed in Singapore, even though their activities, which involve the confinement of migrant workers are illegal. Conducting just one operation to inspect what is an undesirable and illegal operation is insufficient as a response. Further, almost all of the 2000 workers that HOME sees every year have had their work permit cards and passports held by their employers. Workers who make official complaints about employers who hold on to their identity documents risk incurring the displeasure of their employers. They may subsequently be dismissed and repatriated. Even though the MOM acts on the complaints of workers whose passports and identity cards have been taken, they do not provide protection to workers who are repatriated because they have lodged a complaint about it. This common practice of employers confiscating passports and work permit cards must be urgently addressed by MOM.

vi) Prosecution figures: In its response to the TIP Report, MOM has challenged the published prosecution figures, stating them to be factually inaccurate and that there have actually been 5 prosecutions for sex trafficking offenders rather than the stated 4. They also confirmed that in three further confirmed sex trafficking cases, the offenders were sternly warned. HOME urges MOM to make the statistics of all trafficking cases publicly available in order to ensure that its efforts to combat human trafficking are transparent and credible. Further, HOME strongly submits that a “stern warning” is a vastly inadequate response to finding someone responsible in any way for sex trafficking.

vii) Redress for fishermen: In response to the statement in the TIP Report that foreign fishermen face significant difficulties when attempting to seek redress for the violation of their labour rights, including unpaid wages and wage deductions, MOM states that it does not have jurisdiction over foreign fishermen working in off-shore waters on non-Singapore flags but the Taskforce has nevertheless worked proactively with the port authorities, unions, seafarer missions and civil society organisations to improve the assistance available. HOME is gravely concerned about the situation facing fishermen, given that they are excluded from Singapore’s Employment Ac4, and they are also not recognised as seafarers, which severely limits the assistance which can be provided to them by the government and associations mentioned in the Taskforce response. HOME urges the Singapore government to ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention (C188, 2007) which provides comprehensive labour protections for fishermen.

viii) Prosecution procedures: The TIP Report raised concern about the Singapore government’s practice of holding the passports of trafficked persons and declining their requests for repatriation so as to ensure they remained as material witnesses in cases against their traffickers. The Taskforce’s response that the presence of witnesses is necessary for successful prosecution but that witnesses always have the choice whether to remain or return and that their departure is facilitated should they opt for repatriation. It is HOME’s experience that many individuals who are suspected to be victims of trafficking do not pursue their cases against their traffickers due to their strong wish to return to their country of origin and/or avoid staying in Singapore to pursue a case and remain for lengthy periods during which inadequate support services and financial support are available to them. HOME considers the lack of a comprehensive victim assistance programme in Singapore to be the key factor in determining whether a trafficked person is willing to remain in the country to pursue his or her case and urges the Taskforce to make such a programme available. Further, HOME submits that the availability of any such victim assistance programme must not be conditional upon the participation of a trafficked individual in a prosecution case. HOME advocates for a victim-centred approach to combating trafficking which must prioritise the needs of the individual who has been trafficked above all else.

ix) Penalties on convicted TIP offenders: The Taskforce responded to the TIP Report’s suggestion that the Singapore government has not demonstrated increased efforts to apply stringent penalties to convicted trafficking offenders by stating that Singapore’s trafficking offences carry penalties of up to 10 years. HOME notes that even though certain offences in the Singapore Penal Code address elements of trafficking, there are key aspects of the international definition of trafficking as set out in Section 3 of the UN’s Palermo Protocol which are not found anywhere in Singapore’s legislation. This means that many cases, particularly labour trafficking cases, remain undetected and unprosecuted. Worst still, there are cases in which trafficked persons themselves have been criminalised, especially when they are undocumented and are treated as immigration offenders whilst their traffickers remain at large. HOME urges the Taskforce to identify the significant gaps in the current legislation vis a vis the international definition of trafficking in persons and take steps to ensure that a comprehensive legislative response is put in place in order to combat all forms of trafficking in Singapore.

x) Assistance for victims: The Taskforce has responded to the statement in the TIP Report that the government has 24 children homes and dormitories available to house child trafficking victims by clarifying that child trafficking victims are not housed in dormitories but rather in homes. It also emphasised that MCYS funds shelters which offer protection for trafficking victims, including accommodation, medical care, counselling and translation services. HOME is concerned that the government has insufficient space for housing female migrant workers who have been subjected to exploitation and trafficking. HOME has in the past attempted to find accommodation for female migrant workers through the Ministry of Manpower and the Migrant Workers Centre but have found it very difficult to do so. HOME strongly believes that a far more comprehensive response is required of the Taskforce. Specialised victim assistance services are required, including shelters specifically intended for victims of trafficking. As stated above, HOME currently operates its own Victim Assistance Programme which seeks to address the gaps in protection offered by the government.

5. HOME encourages the Taskforce to maintain an open dialogue with civil society organisations given the importance of the implementation of the NPA in a transparent and accountable manner. Further, organisations such as HOME have extensive experience in providing assistance to victims of trafficking and other forms of labour exploitation which may assist the Taskforce in its work. In the Joint Civil Society statement submitted to the Taskforce in April 2012, the Taskforce was invited to formalise regular engagement with a forum of civil society organisations so as to ensure a collaborative approach to the NPA. A response has yet to be received from the Taskforce, but it is hoped that such engagement will be forthcoming so that positive progress can be made in the fight against trafficking in Singapore.

Of the two parties in the dock, SMRT’s response seemed more terse and defensive. It pointed out that reports had shown that the December incidents were largely due to bad luck: a confluence of “isolated and latent material defects” in the rail component that failed coupled with the “coincidental existence” of two other adjacent defective components.  The company insisted that while it needed to improve, its maintenance regime had “worked well in the past 25 years”. Its re-statement of the obvious – that there are “challenges” arising from the “aging…MRT system and…rapidly increasing ridership” – might have raised questions of whether it should have done a better job preparing to meet these trends.

On the other hand, LTA came across as being more contrite and keen to rectify past faults. It sought to convey in detail how it would work with SMRT to improve contingency plans and maintenance regimes.  Significantly, it stated that it would shift to a more proactive regulatory approach to “safeguard commuters’ interest”, addressing an oft-heard criticism that it had been too passive towards its charges in the past.  On 16th July it announced that it would fine SMRT $2 million – the maximum penalty – for the two disruptions in December, astutely adding that the monies would be given to the Public Transport Fund for needy families.

Commuters would certainly be hoping that LTA keeps to its promise.  Given that SMRT’s response reeked of an attempt to deflect blame, it seems necessary to have a proactive and stern regulator to keep it (as well as SBS Transit, the other main rail and bus operator) in line. Before the December incidents, LTA’s relatively limp responses to commuter complaints about the public transport operators seemed to be due to regulatory capture: with the government’s majority stakes in both the main operators, the latter’s interests (and profits) appeared paramount to commuters’.

With the tide of public anger unstoppered since last December, LTA’s political masters at the Transport Ministry are likely to back a stricter approach to the operators.  Despite the justifiable anger at LTA and the Transport Ministry, they should be given a chance to show that they can turn things around.

But they also need to ensure that LTA has the proper tools to do its job.  The maximum $1 million fine for a disruption seems fairly trivial in light of the seriousness of the December incidents, and the ministry should consider raising it.  It should also consider a “zero-tolerance” approach to regulating safety and standards, by setting a detailed code of transgressions and penalties, and enforcing these sternly to keep the operators on their toes.  LTA’s current code seems to be vague and soft.

Whether that would hold in the longer term is another issue.  That the COI, with its narrow focus on technical and procedural failings, did not delve into broader structural issues may have been a missed opportunity.  It did provide some hints, such as suggesting that SMRT should return to its roots as “principally an engineering and operations company”, which seemed to refer to criticism from some quarters that the company had been too focused on chasing profits through avenues such as advertising.  That seems like sound advice, and the LTA should make sure that the public transport operators adhere to it.  Commuters will certainly be watching closely.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

He added, "Justice can be tempered with mercy and, where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance."

What does this "second chance" mean, especially for those whom the State itself has determined to have sub-normal intellect?

Read the full article, written by Andrew Loh, on Yahoo Singapore here.

Mr Wong, who is the chairman of the sub-committee on member care of the Law Society, had approached both senior counsel Mr David Chong, representing the Attorney General, and Mr Ravi, outside the courtroom on Monday, before proceedings began. He had with him a copy of a letter from Dr Calvin Fones in which the doctor stated that he had diagnosed Mr Ravi as having a “relapse” of his bi-polar condition and that Mr Ravi was “unfit to practise” law.

Dr Fones had sent the letter to the Law Society, apparently without Mr Ravi’s knowledge.

Later, Mr Wong attempted to address the Court in open court, although before the proceedings Mr Louis Joseph – Mr Ravi’s co-counsel - had advised Mr Wong to address the judge in chambers instead regarding Dr Fones’ letter. In any case, Justice Pillai disallowed Mr Wong  making his case in open court and asked him to be seated and that he will hear Mr Wong and the two parties in chambers after the morning’s proceedings.

In chambers, Justice Pillai reprimanded Mr Wong for his behaviour and that of the Law Society, calling their behaviour “unprecedented”. Justice Pillai asked what Mr Wong wanted him to do. Mr Wong replied that he was only there to inform the Court of Dr Fones’ letter.  The judge then asked Mr Wong if Mr Ravi had a valid practising certificate and Mr Wong replied, yes. Justice Pillai then decided that since that was the case, Mr Ravi was free to continue in Court.

Later that same afternoon, Mr Wong again appeared before Justice Quentin Loh prior to the hearing into the case involving several party leaders of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) began.

Mr Wong, despite having been admonished by Justice Pillai in the morning, requested to be heard. Justice Loh then ordered all parties into chambers.

In chambers, Mr Wong informed the judge of the letter from Dr Fones. Mr Joseph, who was standing in for Mr Ravi, protested that Mr Ravi was not present to answer the claims by Mr Wong and the content of the letter from Dr Fones. The judge then said, “I’m glad this finished nicely.  I don’t like to take this matter to open court.”

The Court then resumed proceedings into the hearing on the SDP case.

On Tuesday morning, Mr Ravi and his associates were again at the High Court. They were there for a pre-trial conference on the case brought by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam to have the Court issue an injunction to stop the Singapore Government from providing loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking to do this because he argues that the Government had not sought or received the approval of the elected president and Parliament to provide the loans to the IMF.

The hearing, presided over by the senior assistant registrar, was at 9am and ended shortly after, at about 9.30am.

Mr Wong appeared at around that time only to discover that the pre-trial conference had already ended. We understand that Mr Wong was there for the same reasons for which he was in Court on the earlier two occasions on Monday when he interrupted  proceedings to inform the Court of Dr Fones’ letter. When Mr Wong realised the hearing had ended, he left the court house.

We understand that Mr Ravi is required to have his condition reviewed regularly in order to continue to practise law. This was imposed by the Law Society. Mr Wong’s sub-committee for member care is in charge of member lawyers who practise under such conditions. Mr Wong told the media that it was he who had “raised the matter to the Secretariat of the Law Society” when he was informed by Dr Fones of his diagnosis of Mr Ravi. It was the Secretariat “which agreed that the matter should be brought to the attention of the court”, Mr Wong is reported to have said.

The conditions imposed by the Law Society on Mr Ravi, however, do not include Mr Ravi’s doctor providing his diagnosis to the Law Society directly without Mr Ravi’s consent. Mr Ravi is supposed to submit his medical report to the Law Society every four months.

The conditions imposed on Mr Ravi by the Law Society expire in a few months, according to Mr Joseph. This, however, may be extended by the Law Society. Mr Ravi, however, can challenge this at the Court of Appeal, if an extension is sought by the Law Society.

The 3 attempts by Mr Wong, who was representing the Law Society, to have Mr Ravi stopped from carrying out his legal duties in Court have given rise to questions of not only the motivation behind the attempts, but also why proper court procedures were not followed. Why indeed did Mr Wong find it appropriate to interrupt court proceedings in the way he did, even after already having been admonished for doing so by Justice Pillai on Monday morning?

In addition, questions have now also been raised about the confidentiality of Dr Fones’ diagnosis, and how and why Dr Fones found it prudent to apparently betray this doctor-patient confidentiality, without first consulting Mr Ravi.

Mr Ravi says he intends to file a complain about Dr Fones with the Singapore Medical Association.

------------------------

UPDATE: On Tuesday evening, the Law Society of Singapore issued a statement to the press. You can read it here.

An extract of the Law Society's statement:

"Mr Wong Siew Hong, who was the lawyer assigned by LSS to liaise with Mr Ravi and Dr Fones, received information from Dr Fones on Sunday regarding Mr Ravi's condition. He decided to go to Court on his own volition with Dr Fones' information.

LSS is satisfied that although Mr Wong had acted very much on his own, he did so with the best of intentions."

------------------------

Richard Wan is editor of TR Emeritus

Read the earlier report on the events so far here: Doctor's letter "ridiculous", says M Ravi.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Accordingly, Council obtained Mr Ravi's permission to speak with his physician, Dr Calvin Fones. Mr Ravi was also present at this meeting. Dr Fones advised that Mr Ravi was fit to practise, but he had to take his medication regularly, and it would be best if this could be properly supervised.

Acting on this advice, LSS decided to approve Mr Ravi's application for a Practising Certificate ("PC") for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 as follows:

(a) For 2009, the condition was that Mr Ravi would practise under the supervision of Ms Violet Netto. This was agreed to by Mr Ravi, as Ms Netto was his choice.

(b) For 2010, the condition was relaxed to allow him to practise in partnership with Ms Netto. For both 2009 and 2010, Mr Ravi was required to furnish reports from Dr Fones every three months.

(c) For 2011, the condition that he be supervised by Ms Netto was re-imposed. The condition that he furnished a medical report was now at 2-monthly intervals. There was an additional condition that he had to take his medication.

(d) For 2012, the condition that he be supervised was removed, and he was allowed to practise in partnership with Ms Netto. In respect of the furnishing of medical reports, this was relaxed to 4-monthly reporting.

LSS took the view that these conditions were a fair balance regarding the interests of the public and the interests of Mr Ravi as a practising lawyer.

It will be noted from the foregoing that LSS relied very much upon Mr Ravi's own physician regarding his state of health. The conditions were discussed with Mr Ravi, and he accepted them.

As to the events of Monday, 16 July 2012, LSS has ascertained the following:-

(a) Mr Wong Siew Hong, who was the lawyer assigned by LSS to liaise with Mr Ravi and Dr Fones, received information from Dr Fones on Sunday regarding Mr Ravi's condition. He decided to go to Court on his own volition with Dr Fones' information.

(b) LSS is satisfied that although Mr Wong had acted very much on his own, he did so with the best of intentions.

(c) A member of the LSS secretariat decided to go down to the Court to observe the proceedings. This was at his own initiative. This staff member has no right of audience before the Courts and there is no basis to suggest that he was there to make an application to prevent Mr Ravi from arguing his case.

(d) Members of Council of LSS were aware of the situation only in the afternoon when they were informed by LSS secretariat that there were enquiries from the press. Council was not in possession of the full facts. As a result, the statement issued in the evening of 16th July 2012 contained the error that LSS had initiated the intervention in the court proceedings.

(e) In the light of Dr Fones' letter, the matter will be reviewed by the Practice Committee, which will then send its recommendations to Council. In making its decision, Council will continue to take into account the public interests and the interests of its members. In addition Council intends to speak to both Mr Ravi and Dr Fones.

It is very easy to speculate and criticize LSS. LSS is confident that it has discharged its duties properly and in good faith. LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.

LSS believes that it is important that the public has confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers. Unsubstantiated criticism of LSS is unfair to its volunteers, and does the public a grave disservice. Any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the LSS is untrue and irresponsible.

Wong Meng Meng, SC

President

Law Society of Singapore"

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

In January this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that ministerial salaries were going to be cut by a not insignificant 36-37 per cent; then in February the Budget revealed policies and measures that were expressly pro-Singaporean and welfare-oriented, a welcomed effort to address growing unhappiness over excessive population growth and a widening divide between the rich and the poor—both fuelled in no small part by an immigration policy that has left our front door not just wide open, but without even a gatekeeper, or so it feels.

In March the newly elected Minister of State for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, declared that our foreign domestic workers be given a day off per week by law. And now Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Law Minister K Shanmugam have committed to amending the death penalty so that it is no longer mandatory for drug trafficking and homicide, albeit subject to certain stringent conditions.

These changes have come after years of campaigning and protesting on the parts of many. Sky-high ministerial salaries have been a gnawing source of resentment for a populace that has had to bear with near stagnant wages and burgeoning costs; migrant workers’ rights groups like TWC2 (Transient Workers Count Too) and HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics) have been persistently pushing for proper rest time for foreign domestic workers to be legislated; opposition parties like the Singapore Democratic Party have been advocating a stronger welfare-model for Singapore; and the anti-mandatory death penalty movement, comprising a collection of individuals like lawyer M Ravi  and groups like We Believe in Second Chances, the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) and Think Centre, have been steadfastly trying to get this law changed through their relentless activism.

So the government’s moves to take a fairer stand on these issues was naturally greeted with a good degree of joy, relief and approval by these camps, and earned the PAP back some of the favour it has lost over the years through its high-handed, elitist approach, draconian laws, lack of transparency and dismissal of anyone’s voice apart from its own.

You would think that this means the fraught PAP―which in the last Election saw its margin of votes drop to its lowest since Singapore became independent in 1965, is now in a better position, having appeased to some degree the liberal camp, their most vocal critics.

Another pool of PAP critics

But another pool of PAP critics is surfacing—from amongst the PAP’s very own supporters, who feel that these recent changes are signs of weakness, of the party going soft, and feel like fans  disappointed by their idol. When Minister Tan Chuan Jin insisted that foreign domestic workers be guaranteed time off, some employers reacted by making the ridiculous complaint that they would now have to give up their Sundays so their maids can rest, and were completely resentful of this new legislation.

When the Budget’s thoughtful basket of subsidies and incentives was revealed by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, most welcomed it but some cried out loud that financing all this help was going to put a strain on our GDP and that the government was being too generous. Also, local business owners, particularly those in sectors that depend heavily on foreign labour, decried the new limitations on hiring foreigners and were not wooed by the perks to hire locally (because they lament there are no locals willing to be hired for certain positions), feeling like the government is being insensitive to their needs while rolling out the red carpet for foreign investors and companies. The antipathy felt by local business owners cuts across the business community, from small bar and restaurant owners to wealthy, high-end business owners whom you would typically count amongst PAP circles.

And when DPM Teo announced the slight easing of the death penalty, making it discretionary rather than mandatory in some cases, conservative voices from some quarters have catastrophised the situation, lamenting that with this the flood gates will open and wash in drug dealers from all corners of Southeast Asia who will station themselves at every HDB block in the land. Veteran Straits Times commentator Chua Mui Hoong expressed in her article, ‘Discretion is Fine but Stay Tough on Crime’, (posted on http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot.sg/2012/07/parliament-highlights-9-july-2012.html)  that she was worried this move would undermine Singapore’s steadfast message on being tough on crime and make us look feeble (my words). “Where were the hardliners?” she cries.

Still around, though perhaps not as happy with the PAP as before.

And PAP’s traditional critics, while encouraged, are still a long way from being sold. SADPC, for instance, have lauded the move to make the death penalty more discretionary but is emphasizing that the government has to do more and wants a full abolition of the death penalty. HOME recently issued a statement on human trafficking that affirms all the government’s efforts comply with the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) but bluntly points out the areas in which it falls short of full compliance. The much criticised Internal Security Act is still very much in place, as is Penal Code 377A in spite of greater social acceptance of sexual freedom, as shown by this year’s successful Pink Dot. The PAP also took a lot of flak when it raised the issue of introducing an Internet Code of Conduct, a plan many netizens and protectors of press freedom felt was motivated by the desire to silence online criticism of the ruling party.

PAP in a state of flux

So where does that leave the PAP? In a state of flux. It is a party trying to change but not sure how. It knows it needs to let go, to move with the times, to reconnect with the people, and it is trying to do that gradually, cautiously, some will say tentatively. At the same time, it also holds fast to the tough stance the party is known for.

In trying to negotiate its way through these uncharted waters, it has not sent clear signals of where it is ultimately heading. Personally I, like many others, are pleased with the changes mentioned here, though I would like to see an overarching strategy that pulls them all together and takes things forward. Right now the  changes are piecemeal and in trying to please everyone they might just end up pleasing no one.

Change is never easy and almost invariably leaves someone unhappy. But worse than that is for people to not know where you stand. The PAP needs to work out what it wants to become and more boldly go down that path, like its first generation of party leaders did.

Will this cost them votes? Maybe. But as Minister Lim said, “(Better) to be voted out for trying to do the right things which may be unpopular, than to be voted in by people for doing the wrong things."

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

“Whatever your level of opportunity, you can always raise the level of well-being if you focus on the indicators that matter,” said Yeoh. “The development options that Bhutan has are completely different from ours. But what they do which we don’t is to focus on key indicators.”

Yeoh and Bhaskaran were speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies to a team of Nanyang Technological University journalism students who are heading to Bhutan to report on its economy and society.

The two economists are adjunct senior research fellows at IPS, and were part of the team that penned a groundbreaking policy paper on the need for a new social compact in Singapore.

Bhaskaran said Singapore should not view GDP growth “as the be all and end all”.

“Are we really building the kind of economy that really services the needs of the citizens?,” he asked. He said that an overreliance on multi-national companies (MNCs) had thwarted the development of a homegrown private sector and led to excessive gains from Singapore’s growth leaving the republic’s shores.

“At the end of the day economics…is all about whether you can deliver things to the average guy and make his life meaningful,” he added.

Yeoh refuted criticism that Bhutan’s focus on economic well-being is “romanticised” and impractical for a developed country like Singapore. “Once upon a time in Singapore we had socialised medicine, we had affordable housing, we had an egalitarian education system,” he said. “We had it in Singapore but we lost it in the last twenty years.”

The economists stressed, though, that Bhutan’s specific policies could not be imported wholesale to a developed country like Singapore.

Bhutan has a per capita income of US$6,000, compared with Singapore’s US$49,700.

Perched in the foothills of the inaccessible Himalayas, the kingdom is forced to depend heavily on neighbouring India as an export market and for investments. Yeoh said: “They would like to have a lot of things that we have, they would like to have the MNCs that we have, but maybe they can’t get them”.

Thus, it is the idea of measuring progress with relevant yardsticks that Singapore can learn from Bhutan, according to Yeoh and Bhaskaran.

In healthcare for example, possible indicators could be the proportion of citizens’ “out of pocket” expenses compared with other developed countries, and the breadth of outreach of public hospitals. Yeoh noted that such targets –  instead of looking solely at costs and facilities – would result in more people benefitting from a higher standard of care.

Income inequality was also a relevant measure, he said. Citing The Spirit Level – a book about the social impact of income inequality – he noted that a widening wealth gap was known to lead to various social ills including higher juvenile delinquency, diminished social mobility and shorter life expectancy.

“Singapore is not focusing on the key indicators,” he said.

Comparisons between the two countries are not new. The example of Bhutan was debated in Parliament last year, after opposition MP Sylvia Lim asked if the government would create its own GNH index after co-sponsoring a Bhutan-led UN resolution to make happiness a key development goal.

In response, national development minister Khaw Boon Wan – who had previously visited Bhutan – cautioned against viewing the kingdom as “Shangri-La on earth”. He remarked that the only “happy” people he saw were wealthy tourists, children with “angelic innocence” and foreign volunteers who found meaning in helping the less privileged.

“Most of time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products,” he said.

Find out more about the GO-FAR trip to Bhutan at http://www.gofar.sg

Upon notification of Mr Ravi’s alleged “relapse” of his medical condition, Mr Wong – who was assigned as the liaison between Dr Fones [picture, right] and the LSS on the matter – attempted to inform the High Court on Monday, as Mr Ravi was presenting his arguments in the case on the Prime Minister’s discretionary powers to call by-elections, of Dr Fones' diagnosis.

Judge Philip Pillai met with Mr Wong, the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) and Mr Ravi in his chambers and reprimanded Mr Wong and the Law Society for having the “audacity” to appear in court without an application to be heard.

On Monday afternoon, Mr Wong made his second attempt to inform the Court of Mr Ravi’s alleged medical condition.

This time, Justice Quentin Loh was presiding over the case on several leaders of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for illegal assembly. In chambers, Justice Quentin Loh dismissed Mr Wong’s arguments and allowed proceedings to continue. Mr Ravi was not in Court and had Mr Louis Joseph stand in for him then.

On Tuesday morning, Mr Ravi was representing Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam in a pre-trial conference. Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking an injunction from the Court to stop the Singapore Government from providing a US$4 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Mr Wong’s 3rd attempt to stop Mr Ravi from acting for his client was in vain again – but this time because Mr Wong [picture, right] himself was late for the proceedings and had only arrived after they ended.

These events have raised widespread shock and criticisms of Mr Wong, Dr Fones and the LSS which, incidentally, said that Mr Wong had “acted on his own volition” and that he did so “with the best of intentions.”

Critics, however, charged that his actions have brought the Bar into disrepute. The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) criticised the LSS and that the behaviour of Mr Wong had “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute.”

Questions have also been raised about how a supposedly confidential and private medical report could be circulated to the Law Society by Dr Fones, and whether Mr Wong had misrepresented himself to the courts, since the LSS said that he had “acted on his own volition.” Would the courts have allowed him to be heard, since he had no locus standi in all the 3 cases which proceedings he interrupted, if he had not represented himself as a representative of the LSS?

These are some of the questions which perhaps Mr Ravi’s lawsuits will shed light on.

Stay tuned for more updates from publichouse.sg.

Read also: Doctor’s letter “ridiculous”, says M Ravi.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Mr Wong, who is the chairman of the sub-committee on member care of the Law Society, had approached both senior counsel Mr David Chong, representing the Attorney General, and Mr Ravi, outside the courtroom on Monday, before proceedings began. He had with him a copy of a letter from Dr Calvin Fones in which the doctor stated that he had diagnosed Mr Ravi as having a “relapse” of his bi-polar condition and that Mr Ravi was “unfit to practise” law.

Dr Fones had sent the letter to the Law Society, apparently without Mr Ravi’s knowledge.

Later, Mr Wong attempted to address the Court in open court, although before the proceedings Mr Louis Joseph – Mr Ravi’s co-counsel - had advised Mr Wong to address the judge in chambers instead regarding Dr Fones’ letter. In any case, Justice Pillai disallowed Mr Wong  making his case in open court and asked him to be seated and that he will hear Mr Wong and the two parties in chambers after the morning’s proceedings.

In chambers, Justice Pillai reprimanded Mr Wong for his behaviour and that of the Law Society, calling their behaviour “unprecedented”. Justice Pillai asked what Mr Wong wanted him to do. Mr Wong replied that he was only there to inform the Court of Dr Fones’ letter.  The judge then asked Mr Wong if Mr Ravi had a valid practising certificate and Mr Wong replied, yes. Justice Pillai then decided that since that was the case, Mr Ravi was free to continue in Court.

Later that same afternoon, Mr Wong again appeared before Justice Quentin Loh prior to the hearing into the case involving several party leaders of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) began.

Mr Wong, despite having been admonished by Justice Pillai in the morning, requested to be heard. Justice Loh then ordered all parties into chambers.

In chambers, Mr Wong informed the judge of the letter from Dr Fones. Mr Joseph, who was standing in for Mr Ravi, protested that Mr Ravi was not present to answer the claims by Mr Wong and the content of the letter from Dr Fones. The judge then said, “I’m glad this finished nicely.  I don’t like to take this matter to open court.”

The Court then resumed proceedings into the hearing on the SDP case.

On Tuesday morning, Mr Ravi and his associates were again at the High Court. They were there for a pre-trial conference on the case brought by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam to have the Court issue an injunction to stop the Singapore Government from providing loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking to do this because he argues that the Government had not sought or received the approval of the elected president and Parliament to provide the loans to the IMF.

The hearing, presided over by the senior assistant registrar, was at 9am and ended shortly after, at about 9.30am.

Mr Wong appeared at around that time only to discover that the pre-trial conference had already ended. We understand that Mr Wong was there for the same reasons for which he was in Court on the earlier two occasions on Monday when he interrupted  proceedings to inform the Court of Dr Fones’ letter. When Mr Wong realised the hearing had ended, he left the court house.

We understand that Mr Ravi is required to have his condition reviewed regularly in order to continue to practise law. This was imposed by the Law Society. Mr Wong’s sub-committee for member care is in charge of member lawyers who practise under such conditions. Mr Wong told the media that it was he who had “raised the matter to the Secretariat of the Law Society” when he was informed by Dr Fones of his diagnosis of Mr Ravi. It was the Secretariat “which agreed that the matter should be brought to the attention of the court”, Mr Wong is reported to have said.

The conditions imposed by the Law Society on Mr Ravi, however, do not include Mr Ravi’s doctor providing his diagnosis to the Law Society directly without Mr Ravi’s consent. Mr Ravi is supposed to submit his medical report to the Law Society every four months.

The conditions imposed on Mr Ravi by the Law Society expire in a few months, according to Mr Joseph. This, however, may be extended by the Law Society. Mr Ravi, however, can challenge this at the Court of Appeal, if an extension is sought by the Law Society.

The 3 attempts by Mr Wong, who was representing the Law Society, to have Mr Ravi stopped from carrying out his legal duties in Court have given rise to questions of not only the motivation behind the attempts, but also why proper court procedures were not followed. Why indeed did Mr Wong find it appropriate to interrupt court proceedings in the way he did, even after already having been admonished for doing so by Justice Pillai on Monday morning?

In addition, questions have now also been raised about the confidentiality of Dr Fones’ diagnosis, and how and why Dr Fones found it prudent to apparently betray this doctor-patient confidentiality, without first consulting Mr Ravi.

Mr Ravi says he intends to file a complain about Dr Fones with the Singapore Medical Association.

------------------------

UPDATE: On Tuesday evening, the Law Society of Singapore issued a statement to the press. You can read it here.

An extract of the Law Society's statement:

"Mr Wong Siew Hong, who was the lawyer assigned by LSS to liaise with Mr Ravi and Dr Fones, received information from Dr Fones on Sunday regarding Mr Ravi's condition. He decided to go to Court on his own volition with Dr Fones' information.

LSS is satisfied that although Mr Wong had acted very much on his own, he did so with the best of intentions."

------------------------

Richard Wan is editor of TR Emeritus

Read the earlier report on the events so far here: Doctor's letter "ridiculous", says M Ravi.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

In January this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that ministerial salaries were going to be cut by a not insignificant 36-37 per cent; then in February the Budget revealed policies and measures that were expressly pro-Singaporean and welfare-oriented, a welcomed effort to address growing unhappiness over excessive population growth and a widening divide between the rich and the poor—both fuelled in no small part by an immigration policy that has left our front door not just wide open, but without even a gatekeeper, or so it feels.

In March the newly elected Minister of State for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, declared that our foreign domestic workers be given a day off per week by law. And now Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Law Minister K Shanmugam have committed to amending the death penalty so that it is no longer mandatory for drug trafficking and homicide, albeit subject to certain stringent conditions.

These changes have come after years of campaigning and protesting on the parts of many. Sky-high ministerial salaries have been a gnawing source of resentment for a populace that has had to bear with near stagnant wages and burgeoning costs; migrant workers’ rights groups like TWC2 (Transient Workers Count Too) and HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics) have been persistently pushing for proper rest time for foreign domestic workers to be legislated; opposition parties like the Singapore Democratic Party have been advocating a stronger welfare-model for Singapore; and the anti-mandatory death penalty movement, comprising a collection of individuals like lawyer M Ravi  and groups like We Believe in Second Chances, the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) and Think Centre, have been steadfastly trying to get this law changed through their relentless activism.

So the government’s moves to take a fairer stand on these issues was naturally greeted with a good degree of joy, relief and approval by these camps, and earned the PAP back some of the favour it has lost over the years through its high-handed, elitist approach, draconian laws, lack of transparency and dismissal of anyone’s voice apart from its own.

You would think that this means the fraught PAP―which in the last Election saw its margin of votes drop to its lowest since Singapore became independent in 1965, is now in a better position, having appeased to some degree the liberal camp, their most vocal critics.

Another pool of PAP critics

But another pool of PAP critics is surfacing—from amongst the PAP’s very own supporters, who feel that these recent changes are signs of weakness, of the party going soft, and feel like fans  disappointed by their idol. When Minister Tan Chuan Jin insisted that foreign domestic workers be guaranteed time off, some employers reacted by making the ridiculous complaint that they would now have to give up their Sundays so their maids can rest, and were completely resentful of this new legislation.

When the Budget’s thoughtful basket of subsidies and incentives was revealed by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, most welcomed it but some cried out loud that financing all this help was going to put a strain on our GDP and that the government was being too generous. Also, local business owners, particularly those in sectors that depend heavily on foreign labour, decried the new limitations on hiring foreigners and were not wooed by the perks to hire locally (because they lament there are no locals willing to be hired for certain positions), feeling like the government is being insensitive to their needs while rolling out the red carpet for foreign investors and companies. The antipathy felt by local business owners cuts across the business community, from small bar and restaurant owners to wealthy, high-end business owners whom you would typically count amongst PAP circles.

And when DPM Teo announced the slight easing of the death penalty, making it discretionary rather than mandatory in some cases, conservative voices from some quarters have catastrophised the situation, lamenting that with this the flood gates will open and wash in drug dealers from all corners of Southeast Asia who will station themselves at every HDB block in the land. Veteran Straits Times commentator Chua Mui Hoong expressed in her article, ‘Discretion is Fine but Stay Tough on Crime’, (posted on http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot.sg/2012/07/parliament-highlights-9-july-2012.html)  that she was worried this move would undermine Singapore’s steadfast message on being tough on crime and make us look feeble (my words). “Where were the hardliners?” she cries.

Still around, though perhaps not as happy with the PAP as before.

And PAP’s traditional critics, while encouraged, are still a long way from being sold. SADPC, for instance, have lauded the move to make the death penalty more discretionary but is emphasizing that the government has to do more and wants a full abolition of the death penalty. HOME recently issued a statement on human trafficking that affirms all the government’s efforts comply with the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) but bluntly points out the areas in which it falls short of full compliance. The much criticised Internal Security Act is still very much in place, as is Penal Code 377A in spite of greater social acceptance of sexual freedom, as shown by this year’s successful Pink Dot. The PAP also took a lot of flak when it raised the issue of introducing an Internet Code of Conduct, a plan many netizens and protectors of press freedom felt was motivated by the desire to silence online criticism of the ruling party.

PAP in a state of flux

So where does that leave the PAP? In a state of flux. It is a party trying to change but not sure how. It knows it needs to let go, to move with the times, to reconnect with the people, and it is trying to do that gradually, cautiously, some will say tentatively. At the same time, it also holds fast to the tough stance the party is known for.

In trying to negotiate its way through these uncharted waters, it has not sent clear signals of where it is ultimately heading. Personally I, like many others, are pleased with the changes mentioned here, though I would like to see an overarching strategy that pulls them all together and takes things forward. Right now the  changes are piecemeal and in trying to please everyone they might just end up pleasing no one.

Change is never easy and almost invariably leaves someone unhappy. But worse than that is for people to not know where you stand. The PAP needs to work out what it wants to become and more boldly go down`that path, like its first generation of party leaders did.

Will this cost them votes? Maybe. But as Minister Lim said, “(Better) to be voted out for trying to do the right things which may be unpopular, than to be voted in by people for doing the wrong things."

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

“Whatever your level of opportunity, you can always raise the level of well-being if you focus on the indicators that matter,” said Yeoh. “The development options that Bhutan has are completely different from ours. But what they do which we don’t is to focus on key indicators.”

Yeoh and Bhaskaran were speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies to a team of Nanyang Technological University journalism students who are heading to Bhutan to report on its economy and society.

The two economists are adjunct senior research fellows at IPS, and were part of the team that penned a groundbreaking policy paper on the need for a new social compact in Singapore.

Bhaskaran said Singapore should not view GDP growth “as the be all and end all”.

“Are we really building the kind of economy that really services the needs of the citizens?,” he asked. He said that an overreliance on multi-national companies (MNCs) had thwarted the development of a homegrown private sector and led to excessive gains from Singapore’s growth leaving the republic’s shores.

“At the end of the day economics…is all about whether you can deliver things to the average guy and make his life meaningful,” he added.

Yeoh refuted criticism that Bhutan’s focus on economic well-being is “romanticised” and impractical for a developed country like Singapore. “Once upon a time in Singapore we had socialised medicine, we had affordable housing, we had an egalitarian education system,” he said. “We had it in Singapore but we lost it in the last twenty years.”

The economists stressed, though, that Bhutan’s specific policies could not be imported wholesale to a developed country like Singapore.

Bhutan has a per capita income of US$6,000, compared with Singapore’s US$49,700.

Perched in the foothills of the inaccessible Himalayas, the kingdom is forced to depend heavily on neighbouring India as an export market and for investments. Yeoh said: “They would like to have a lot of things that we have, they would like to have the MNCs that we have, but maybe they can’t get them”.

Thus, it is the idea of measuring progress with relevant yardsticks that Singapore can learn from Bhutan, according to Yeoh and Bhaskaran.

In healthcare for example, possible indicators could be the proportion of citizens’ “out of pocket” expenses compared with other developed countries, and the breadth of outreach of public hospitals. Yeoh noted that such targets –  instead of looking solely at costs and facilities – would result in more people benefitting from a higher standard of care.

Income inequality was also a relevant measure, he said. Citing The Spirit Level – a book about the social impact of income inequality – he noted that a widening wealth gap was known to lead to various social ills including higher juvenile delinquency, diminished social mobility and shorter life expectancy.

“Singapore is not focusing on the key indicators,” he said.

Comparisons between the two countries are not new. The example of Bhutan was debated in Parliament last year, after opposition MP Sylvia Lim asked if the government would create its own GNH index after co-sponsoring a Bhutan-led UN resolution to make happiness a key development goal.

In response, national development minister Khaw Boon Wan – who had previously visited Bhutan – cautioned against viewing the kingdom as “Shangri-La on earth”. He remarked that the only “happy” people he saw were wealthy tourists, children with “angelic innocence” and foreign volunteers who found meaning in helping the less privileged.

“Most of time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products,” he said.

Find out more about the GO-FAR trip to Bhutan at http://www.gofar.sg

Upon notification of Mr Ravi’s alleged “relapse” of his medical condition, Mr Wong – who was assigned as the liaison between Dr Fones [picture, right] and the LSS on the matter – attempted to inform the High Court on Monday, as Mr Ravi was presenting his arguments in the case on the Prime Minister’s discretionary powers to call by-elections, of Dr Fones' diagnosis.

Judge Philip Pillai met with Mr Wong, the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) and Mr Ravi in his chambers and reprimanded Mr Wong and the Law Society for having the “audacity” to appear in court without an application to be heard.

On Monday afternoon, Mr Wong made his second attempt to inform the Court of Mr Ravi’s alleged medical condition.

This time, Justice Quentin Loh was presiding over the case on several leaders of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for illegal assembly. In chambers, Justice Quentin Loh dismissed Mr Wong’s arguments and allowed proceedings to continue. Mr Ravi was not in Court and had Mr Louis Joseph stand in for him then.

On Tuesday morning, Mr Ravi was representing Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam in a pre-trial conference. Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking an injunction from the Court to stop the Singapore Government from providing a US$4 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Mr Wong’s 3rd attempt to stop Mr Ravi from acting for his client was in vain again – but this time because Mr Wong [picture, right] himself was late for the proceedings and had only arrived after they ended.

These events have raised widespread shock and criticisms of Mr Wong, Dr Fones and the LSS which, incidentally, said that Mr Wong had “acted on his own volition” and that he did so “with the best of intentions.”

Critics, however, charged that his actions have brought the Bar into disrepute. The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) criticised the LSS and that the behaviour of Mr Wong had “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute.”

Questions have also been raised about how a supposedly confidential and private medical report could be circulated to the Law Society by Dr Fones, and whether Mr Wong had misrepresented himself to the courts, since the LSS said that he had “acted on his own volition.” Would the courts have allowed him to be heard, since he had no locus standi in all the 3 cases which proceedings he interrupted, if he had not represented himself as a representative of the LSS?

These are some of the questions which perhaps Mr Ravi’s lawsuits will shed light on.

Stay tuned for more updates from publichouse.sg.

Read also: Doctor’s letter “ridiculous”, says M Ravi.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

For example, paragraph 3 of the Agency’s rebuttal says: “… under the Work Pass Conditions, the employer must ensure that all outstanding salaries and moneys due to the foreign employees are paid before the employee’s repatriation.”

This was not the case for Rana. The Nepalese had to apply for a Writ of Seizure & Sale in a bid to claw back the S$6,865 that a Woodlands coffee shop owner owed him. Getting this writ is costly. There is the stamp duty charge, the bailiff’s attendance fee, the accumulating living expenses burdening the jobless foreigner who lacks a Temporary Work Permit. Such lurking costs are prohibitive. Rana returned to Nepal an indebted person without the “outstanding salaries and monies due to [him]”.

Mr Jolovan Wham, the executive director of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), a Singapore non-governmental organisation which provides aid to migrant workers, told publichouse.sg, “MOM needs to provide figures on employers who were prosecuted and taken to task for cancelling work permits without paying their workers.” He added, “The workers’ problems and grievances go beyond just ‘outstanding salaries and monies due to the foreign employee’, and MOM has failed to address this.”

The lived experience of Rana Kumar Rai is symptomatic of a broader problem with the Singapore taskforce’s response. There is a fissure between the letter of the law and the facts of raw reality.

Another example of how relying on the rules alone may not be sufficient is how employers are able to place employment bars on workers. The Agency said, in reply to the US report, “This is untrue. Singapore employers do not possess powers to place employment bars on foreign workers. Employment bars are imposed by MOM on foreign workers who have been found to have infringed Singapore laws and regulations.”

Although there are regulations barring the employer’s abrupt termination of a worker’s contract, Mr Wham explains that “employers only need to give one day’s notice, or one day’s salary in lieu of notice to workers who are in employment for less than 26 weeks.”

“While employers do not possess the powers to place employment bars on workers, they have considerable influence on MOM to do so, and this needs to be addressed,” Mr Wham says. “Employers may lodge police reports and submit negative feedback about workers and MOM may blacklist them based on such feedback. This method of blacklisting is unjust because the workers are no longer around to respond to the employer’s negative feedback and allegations.”

Another matter the Ministry for Manpower (MOM) also needs to address is the withholding of work permit cards and passports of workers by their employers. It is an issue which have been highlighted many times by the NGOs. “Almost all of the 2,000 workers that HOME sees every year on average have had their work permit cards and passports held by their employers,” Mr Wham says. “Workers who make official complaints about employers who hold on to their identity documents risk incurring the displeasure of their employers. They may subsequently be dismissed and repatriated. Even though the MOM acts on the complaints of workers whose passports and identity cards have been taken, they do not provide protection to workers who are repatriated when they have lodged a complaint about it. This needs to be addressed.”

Repatriation companies, which employers can engage to deal with “problem workers” are “still not outlawed,” Mr Wham says, even though their activities, which involve the confinement of migrant workers, are illegal. “Conducting just one operation to inspect what is an undesirable and illegal operation is insufficient as a response,” says Mr Wham.

As for the matter of human trafficking itself, Mr Wham says at the fundamental level, even Singapore’s definition of what constitutes human trafficking “is not in line with international and United Nations standards.”

“This means that many cases would have gone undetected,” Mr Wham explains. “Worse still, trafficked victims may have been criminalised. Law enforcers are not sufficiently trained to identify potential victims, and those who are undocumented especially are usually treated as immigration offenders only.”

Perhaps the Singapore Government should show a more concrete commitment to protecting the rights of the migrant workers, who are often heavily disadvantaged in disputes with their employers, by ratifying certain International Labour Organisation conventions and to make information such as statistics on human trafficking more easily available to the public, on top of enforcing what the regulations and the law say.

In a previous article, we explored ways to ensure that the regulations were not toothless. Perhaps a more preliminary and more fundamental step involves recognising that the letter of the law lacks bite in the foreign labour market: the rapid flow of people enticed by imperfect information and imperfect translations. Singapore’s taskforce should persist with and deepen its engagement with organisations like HOME and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2). Such organisations have their ears close to the ground. These ears are sensitive to the muffled stories of manipulation and the wrenching disappointment of deceived workers, like Rana Kumar Rai.

Like the signs at construction and road repair sites, Singapore’s efforts to forge a just labour landscape untainted by exploitation is very much a work in progress, with lots more to be done.

So, instead of taking issue with the US State Department’s annual report each time it is released, Singapore should look into the real problems and correct the abuse and exploitation of these workers in a more concrete way.

Into my teens, the night markets, festive as they were, began to lose their appeal. The worldly delights were beguiling and sated an appetite denied during the day but it made the act of fasting contradictory. It was a jarring contrast, the ascetic denial of day contrasted with the festive revelry of night. I can understand why many choose to spend the night in various acts of piety, going to the mosques to pray. There is a calmness in prayer and a space for reflection from the pressures of daily life. However I had no wish to fade away into the grey of night, whatever still quietude it promised. I quickly became impatient with rituals which seemed to focus only on my own concerns. Was Ramadhan merely to concern ourselves with our own salvation? Would we then dare damnation itself, in this life and the hereafter, to think of our fellow man?

It is not as if social concerns were alien to the month. There were of course social activities, one of the most prominent and consistent being the free porridge given out at mosques. However quiet contemplation during the night bred a detached cynicism as guests of honour lined up for the photo opportunity of doling this free porridge out. One can compare this to the quiet dedication of volunteers from non Muslim organizations such as TWC2 serving foreign workers every day. Our own deeds of social concern put into the shade by the NGO’s example to be a blessing to all mankind.

In facing these contradictions, Ramadhan defines itself most sharply as a reminder - a reminder that as humans we share the same vulnerabilities. When we are hungry, our hunger is that of the poor families who struggle to make ends meet. Our thirst is the thirst of the foreign workers toiling under the hot sun. When we are tired waking up early we experience the fatigue of foreign domestic workers who get up early to prepare the day for their families. While words speak of hunger, thirst and fatigue in the abstract, to experience this is to know their reality. And even though our fast ends at dusk and within a month, the suffering of others often carries long into the night, multiplied twelvefold. To grow up with Ramadhan is to be reminded of the social debt to be paid; to understand, empathise and change the circumstances of those who have yet to break their fast.

To be sure, Singapore is indeed quite an achievement and we should all be proud of it.

But perhaps it is precisely because we have achieved so much that we know we can achieve more, and in recent times such sentiments have been expressed. The problem is that the Government does not seem to feel that we can be much more – at least in the direction which Singaporeans feel we are ready to move in.

And therein lies the disconnect, or the disenfranchisement – that while we celebrate, each year, our nation’s birthday with much fanfare, there is always a sense that we the ordinary folks are somehow detached from all of it. That what we feel do not matter because the State will take this nation where it will.

It is a sentiment borne out of the past when the Government held a strong hand and made all and sundry subservient to it. It will take much more to loosen the grip of the fist and free our minds from the fear which the past 50 years have entrenched in our being.

How does one, in such a state, “love Singapore”? It is easy to say, “Yes, there are faults with our country but in spite of that we should nonetheless love it.”

I am not sure if that is all the rationale or the reasoning we need. It intellectually makes sense but it is devoid of any emotional reality.

How does an elderly person slogging away for 8 to 10 hours in a coffeeshop cleaning tables “love Singapore”? How does a gay person, whom our laws effectively label a criminal, “love Singapore”? How does a person of low IQ, or his family, “love Singapore” knowing that if he is found guilty of a capital crime, he will be consigned to life in prison and be caned?

How does a couple who have failed time and again to get a public housing flat – for various reasons not of their own fault – “love Singapore”?

How do we Singaporeans “love Singapore” when we see our public spaces overrun by foreigners?

In the last few years, the many cases of corruption, anger and xenophobia, make this place seem unliveable – and this sentiment can only get worse.

And the destruction of our heritage, places where our shared memories and histories are stored, has made us all feel entirely helpless, we cannot stop it. We cannot stop the Government from erasing these priceless vestiges of our history.

In the end, Singapore must mean more than shiny shopping centres or tourist attractions.

It must be more than these artificial, superficial things.

And that is the voice crying out from the ground – that we want and desire something more.

But what is this “something more” which no one seems able to articulate clear enough so that the Government hears it and understands it and accepts it?

It is compassion.

We want a healthcare system which puts compassion first, where no one – truly – need be afraid of seeing his doctor because he has fears of being unable to pay his medical bills. We would like to see Singaporeans – especially those who are single – not be discriminated against simply because they chose not to get married.

We hope for our disabled to be given consideration when it comes to cost of public transport, for our less fortunate children to be cared for, for our elderly folks to live in dignity in their old age and not be subjected to cleaning after the younger ones at food courts and hawker centres and be told that these older folks are being “gainfully employed.”

We yearn for our artists to be free to express themselves, for our media to be as free too.

Perhaps, at the end of the day, we hope our leaders to be men and women of courage – who will do the right thing, and not the politically expedient thing.

Leaders who truly will give the space back to the people and empower them and leave them to create and express themselves as they will.

This is, perhaps, that “something” which we desire. Space. Freedom. Expression. Rights.

In the last 5 years or so, Singapore has not felt like home, for many of us. It has felt like a place where we have no choice but to toil in, to accept the dictates of the powers-that-be who then ignore our cries, leaving us to our own devices to stay afloat as best we can.

And in the process, it has also stripped us of our sense of citizenship – that visceral connection which a citizen should possess deep in his heart.

Yes, we love Singapore – or at least I do. But at the same time, I cannot but feel that this love is being tested, at times to its limit. When I see my Government wanting to incarcerate the mentally-impaired for life and cane them, for example, I shudder and feel the cold chills racing down my spine.

Surely, my country is better than this, than to want to rip the skin off of the backs of those which the State itself terms mentally unsound or impaired.

It speaks of a society which lacks the basic ability to empathise with the less abled or less fortunate.

To me thus National Day is about the unseen, the unheard, the vulnerable and the weak.

For it is in how we treat the lowest among us that determines what we as a society, as a nation, is. And when we have arrived at that place where the lower strata among us has peace of mind will we then truly have something meaningful to celebrate.

And when we do, then we can truly feel and say we indeed love Singapore.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Although the predominant printed press touts this change as a revamp, the change should be more accurately couched as tweaking. The 3Ms still form the bedrock of the national healthcare. The class-centric system of wards still control the reins of the government’s cautious subsidies.

To butt us out of the inertia of the status quo, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) unveiled a healthcare plan in March 2012. “The plan is a culmination of a nine-month study conducted by the party’s Healthcare Advisory Panel,” the party said. The group comprises of eminent medical practitioners and healthcare specialists who are concerned about the current state of medical care in Singapore.

The SDP’s plan promulgates a radical break from the architecture of 3Ms. Although co-payments are still a feature, the SDP wants compulsory coverage for Singaporeans that is limited by neither a citizen’s age nor a ceiling on the claimable amount. The contributions that citizens will be pooling together do not discriminate based on age, unlike Medishield whose premiums increase as age increases.

Intrigued by this alternative plan, publichouse.sg has conducted an interview with Dr Chee Soon Juan, the SDP’s secretary-general. Dr Chee contrasted not just the financial approaches but also the philosophical fundamentals of the status quo and the SDP’s proposal.

Publichouse.sg recognises that such a debate is paramount and should not be suspended in the theatre of political rivalries. Hence, we are keen on examining the lived experiences and expert opinions of our fellow Singaporeans in subsequent reports on the healthcare system that keeps our city throbbing with life.

We would thus like to invite members of the public to write in to us and share their experiences of the healthcare system in Singapore. We hope to publish a series of such stories in the lead-up to the short film which is focused on the SDP’s national plan.

If you wish to join in or share your experiences or views, email us at: publichousesg@gmail.com.

The following are snippets from the interview with Dr Chee for the short film. This interview will be a springboard for further investigations into the relevance and viability of the SDP’s national healthcare plan.

The film, produced by the team at publichouse.sg, will be released in a few weeks here on this website.

{youtube}DZ-yExVAong|600|450|0{/youtube}

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

The AGC objected to this on the basis that it “scandalises our Courts” and warned that it would proceed with contempt of court charges if the offending post was not taken down.  Several days after receiving the AGC’s letter, Mr Au removed the post and apologised.

But that did not prove to be the end of the matter. Mr Au subsequently posted an article in July criticising what he thought was the authorities’ liberal use of contempt of court charges to stifle debate about possible defects in the judicial system, arguing that “more leeway” should be given to comment in matters about public institutions.  This triggered a typically belligerent reply from the AGC insisting that there had been “no curtailment of free speech” but that Mr Au had “deliberately misrepresented the facts” in his original post.

Mr Au responded again, arguing that the AGC was taking too stringent an approach to criticism: revelations about abuses are usually built on accusations that might not at first be fully supportable by facts, but which may lead to further inquiries that eventually uncover wrongdoings.  Furthermore, he pointed out that the AGC’s position was that only the judiciary should be allowed to police itself, which may not be prudent as public scrutiny has to be an important element in probing things that the people within the institutions may not be able – or willing – to own up to.

The exchange has raised some important questions, the first of which is over the boundaries for debate. In recent years the AGC has adopted the mantra (which it invoked in its letter to Mr Au) that any “accusation of bias” in the judiciary would “diminish it in the eyes of the citizen, lower it and ultimately damage the nation”.  This, as Mr Au has rightly pointed out, is virtually a zero tolerance approach towards criticism of the judiciary.

Yet surely the legitimacy of a public institution is best served by winning the argument against its critics rather than by proactively stifling them.  Taking the latter course will only foster resentment while doing little to correct prejudices – a cursory look at the online reactions to the AGC’s treatment of Mr Au would provide some evidence of that.  It should be pointed out that the courts in countries such as the US and UK are frequently the objects of political haranguing but are among the most well-regarded public institutions in those countries.  If the authorities are as confident about the integrity of Singapore’s judiciary as they claim, there is little to suggest that the same would not happen in Singapore if debate about the courts is given a wider berth.

The second key issue is over the AGC’s use of contempt of court charges against critics of the judiciary.  Its invocation of the charge over Mr Au’s original article is somewhat curious: while it claimed that it was doing so to protect the reputation of the courts because of judges “not being to respond”, it is instructive that Mr Au mentioned the judiciary exactly once in his piece (in his sentence that “the police, prosecutors and judges are indulgent…” quoted in the second paragraph above; the other mentions of “courts” were when he quoted statements made by other people).  The bulk of Mr Au’s article was largely devoted to questioning the AGC’s conduct, in particular its decisions (in cases both past and present) on what to charge defendants with, rather than criticising judicial decisions on the cases.  In this regard, it does not seem clear whose reputation the AGC was out to protect.

The problem is that contempt of court laws, as they currently stand in the statutes, seem like an unusually blunt instrument.  The authorities have prosecuted in this manner with varying degrees of severity: British writer Alan Shadrake was imprisoned for several weeks in 2010 for alleging judicial bias in death row cases; the Wall Street Journal suffered financial penalties in 2008 for publishing letters from opposition leader that incidentally criticised the judiciary; in a slight variation, the AGC brought charges of “insulting” a judge against ex-Singaporean Gopalan Nair in 2008, which resulted in a jail term of several months.

Such an approach seems to be bounded by few limits, which is likely to have an unhealthily negative effect not just on public debate but possibly on the reputation of Singapore’s judicial system as well.  It may be prudent to put some restrictions on contempt of court laws: for instance, the UK’s Contempt of Court Act in 1981 established a benchmark for “strict liability”, allowing contempt charges against publications that have created “a substantial risk” that the course of justice would be “seriously impeded or prejudiced”.  The Act also applies only to “active” or ongoing cases; past cases, such as the one raised by Mr Au in June 2012, would not be applicable.

Furthermore, the precedent established by the UK courts in cases since the Act was passed in the 1980s has given much latitude to publications made as part of a discussion in “good faith” of matters of general public interest.  A similar reform in Singapore is sorely needed if Singaporeans are to have a proper debate on one of the most important public institutions in the country.  Guaranteeing that, in turn, can only be salubrious for the reputation and legitimacy of the courts.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Vui Kong was a naive 19-year-old when he was lured into becoming a drug mule. His boss started by asking him to collect debts, then told him to deliver “gifts” (drugs). These bad people avoided coming into direct contact with the drugs themselves by placing the risk instead on their mules. Such gangs usually target vulnerable people and I am very sorry that my little brother became their unwitting sacrificial lamb.

Over the past six years, my whole family has been worrying about Vui Kong. We’ve never given up on him and have worked hard for him. This is because we believe my brother was tricked. He was naive and incapable of understanding the seriousness of his crime. Vui Kong didn’t know his boss was making use of him when he delivered the ”gifts” (drugs). Till now, Vui Kong’s mother remains unaware that he faces the death penalty. She suffers from severe depression and my family has kept her in the dark. We hope Vui Kong will now be able to escape death so we no longer have to lie to our mother.

Yun Leong's letter, page 2

Vui Kong has embraced Buddhism. Over the past years, he’s become a vegetarian and spends his time studying Buddhist scripture, like a monk. Knowing this gives my family comfort. He is a completely different person from who he was in the past. Vui Kong has repented and is sorry for his past stupidity. We hope authorities can forgive him as he has now turned over a new leaf. Please give Vui Kong, a first-time offender, a second chance. He has changed and will spend the rest of his years doing what he can to support the anti-drug campaign. I believe Vui Kong, who is now a devout Buddhist, can use his experiences to reach out to other young people. He can use himself as an example to tell society about the evils of the drug trade and prevent would-be victims from becoming mules.

I hope the authorities can take into consideration Vui Kong’s youth, family background and other circumstances, before handing out punishment to Vui Kong. He is not a drug lord. He has cooperated and helped identify the real mastermind. I hope that now that the law is going to change, the courts can rethink his punishment and give a repentent Vui Kong, a chance to live.

Yong Yun Leong

Larger copies of the letter is in the attachments below.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook: