We can achieve vs Count on me, Singapore.

 

We can achieve. Count on me, Singapore. Joseph Mendoza. Hugh Harrison. What do they have in common? 

Well, for starters, they are both musicians, composers in fact. They appear to have composed a song that practically shared identical lyrics and melody. And the difference in the time of the composition is, as claimed, three years apart.

Mendoza said he composed We Can Achieve in 1983. Harrison composed Count On Me, Singapore in 1986. And trust me, I heard it. They are two songs in the same melody pod. 

As the papers put it, except for swooping “Singapore” for “India” or “Mother India”, they are almost conjoined twins in umbilical harmony. 

Are we then dealing with Borel’s law here? That is, “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur.” Could this coincidence between We Can Achieve and Count On Me, Singapore be the events with sufficiently small probability?

Borel went on to say: “Such is the sort of event which, though its impossibility may not be rationally demonstrated, is, however, so unlikely that no sensible person will hesitate to declare it actually impossible. If someone affirmed having observed such an event we would be sure that he is deceiving us or has himself been the victim of fraud.”

So, that said, the discomfiture here is, who is the rightful composer of this song? Hugh Harrison or Joseph Mendoza? 

As a Singaporean, I was 16 when I first heard the song and it has been playing in my mind ever since, especially on 9th August, with unconscious refrain a few days after. 

And if you haul this little red dot to copyright court, you can rest assured that we will all sing the same song, with enthused chorus to boot. We may even turn the solemn judicial hall into a patriotic sing-along, like a flash-mob kind of spontaneity. 

But Mendoza will have none of it. He claims he is the rightful composer. He said he had 250 orphans performed the song (We can Achieve) in 1983, “after he had written it while teaching music at the Bal Bhavan orphanage in Mumbai, where he is based.”

Unfortunately, Mendoza said that “the original tapes of his composition were all swept away in the 2005 Mumbai floods.” 

“The only living proof that I can offer you are the 250 orphans who first learnt it in 1983 and all orphans at Bal Bhavan in the successive years too.” So claims the 58-year-old composer. 

The strange twist is that Mendoza said he sold the rights to a Christian Book and record store known as Pauline India in 1999. And Pauline India had publicly acknowledged that We Can Achieve “appears to have been substantially copied from Count On Me Singapore. They have since apologised and removed the song from their platform.” And the MCCY has accepted their apology.

I guess this too-good-to-be-true coincidence would have been passed off (pun unintended) with mutual cordiality if the rightful composer of the song is duly acknowledged, apology notwithstanding. 

Like MCCY said, “Whilst Count On Me Singapore is one of our most beloved national songs, we are also happy it seems to have been well appreciated in India, with the video showing teachers and students in a school performing the song, and expressing their love for their own country.” 

Yet, most unfortunately, it does not end there, because, it is really a case of the Eminem song: “Will the real slim shady please stand up?” For who is telling the truth then, and who is hiding a lie? Or, as Borel reminded us, is this a case of someone being a “victim of a fraud”? 

As far as Hugh Harrison is concerned, he is thinking along the same line too. “The fact that he is claiming now in 2021 that he is the original creator of the song, implying I copied the song from him, is a direct attack on my integrity and professionalism and for that, he could be sued for slander and/or libel.”

“As it stands now, I have written (to) him and given him the opportunity to rescind his claim and am awaiting his response.” MCCY has also written to Mendoza to “invite him to substantiate his claims.” They too are waiting for his response. 

Lesson? Just one.

Well, I would say that for both songs, it’s all for a good cause, rallying hearts among the people in a nation and among orphans in schools to support national unity and pride. It is also largely a non-profit endeavour done out of part obligation, part patriotism and part inspiration. 

Yes, maybe some fees changed hands but the meaning of the song and its impact have surpassed the material gain one is rewarded for when coming up with the song. 

However, credit due has to be credit given, or at least acknowledged. And unless it is a happy coincidence, in a highly capricious universe we live in, thereby knocking off Borel’s law off its metronome beat, Harrison has a point about a “direct attack on (his) integrity and professionalism.”

 

MCCY says as much: “Given that the two songs, and the lyrics, are practically identical, and that we hold the copyright to Count On Me, Singapore, we are puzzled by (Mendoza’s) claim.”

Let me however end with a lament. 

It is really unfortunate that a song with such strong good will and positive feel is now marred with such a legal tussle, not just between two composers, but also between two nations, and god forbid, two races and two cultures. I guess this has crossed over from private right to national pride. And though ownership has to be given credit, strict legal boundaries drawn can also divide, as an inevitable consequence.

As it stands, Harrison and MCCY are waiting for a response from Mendoza and their “legal sabre” is possibly rattling for some apology, due acknowledgment and/or rights accorded; unless of course, coincidences do happen.

Honestly, come 9th August, if Count on Me, Singapore, is ever sung, it may just be one sung with some mixed feelings. I suppose it is largely the same sentiment in the orphanages and schools, if this dispute has rippled over there. 

And alas, if this takes us down that legal road, since India and us are both signatories of some international intellectual property agreement, my only hope is this - that the legal assertion of intellectual property rights and ownership is pursued in a way that advance, protect and give Singaporeans and the orphans/children in the villages of India a voice, that is, a song to sing, a song to achieve, and a song they can always count on. 

For let the settlement, if any, be sealed so that the spirit of the song is kept alive, not just her authorship.