Parti Liyani - Shanmugam"s Micawberism.

Our law minister used the word “Micawberism”. It is “a reference to the feckless optimism displayed by Wilkins Micawber, a character in the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield.”

The context is the controversial Parti Liyana case, which has resulted in further investigation and review of the justice system in the way stolen items are assessed and the manner the custody/evidential chain is processed. Mind you, that case has also led to disciplinary action being taken against the prosecutors and even Karl Liew was hauled up for questioning for his inconsistent statements in court.

With that backdrop in mind, here is our law minister’s reply to NCMP Leong’s call for a Committee of Inquiry for Parti’s case. 

“Let me put it on record, I have no problem recommending such a commission of inquiry. We have nothing to hide. But in law, they will say (this is) Micawberism.” 

There you have it, that’s the word. It is also defined as “irresponsible optimism”. And in derogatory term, it may be used to describe “shit-stirrer”. 

(Although if you read up his character, with flaws, Micawber was a whistleblower exposing wrongdoings and later retired in Australia to become a magistrate. That is another story altogether). 

But, the point of this post is well surmised in Shanmugam’s own inquiry on the call for COI: - 

“...(Do) we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you?”

This is where I believe Shanmugam went full throttle, or unplugged. He talked about Goh Keng Swee’s warning about the “insidious “old boy” type” (referring to a type of nepotism) whereby no illegalities are committed - that will cause fundamental structures to be “eroded like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked.””

He said that deep connections between those appointed to high places is unavoidable. “They may have met through work, in school or during national service.”

That is why our government has to be vigilant. “Singapore‘s smallness presents a more “challenging environment” in managing connections and interactions among those in positions of influence.””

He added: “We will have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. It is critical that whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct, so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessments.”

Lesson? One, it is about the insidious old boys. 

They do exist you know. They are not a figment of our imagination. Their emergence is expected, and as natural as the rot in the head of a fish once exposed to the public air.

But they do not exist in the majority. That is what makes them so insidious. They nestle at the top of the pyramid. They wield disproportionate leverage by virtue of acquiring wealth, power and fame. They control the masses, and most times, the masses are enthralled by them. And anything that gets in their way, anything that needs to be checked, moderated and silenced, they have their means to do it, in the most legitimate way possible, whereby “no illegalities are committed.”

So, like Matrix Revolution, not all of the people invited want to take the red pill, where their reality is stripped away to reveal the shadowy truth of a society we are living in. 

This ain’t no QAnon, but it is the occasional pierced veil that hides the dubious rich and powerful, and their many legal means of achieving questionable ends. It is therefore a choice between the red pill of knowledge or the blue pill of blissful ignorance. 

But the question is, as posed by our law minister, “Do we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable?”

Yes, the CJ has granted leave for a disciplinary committee to investigate on the prosecutorial conduct concerning the video issue, and there will be some new protocols for the police to implement (and some tweaks on the existing protocols) when it comes to how they conduct their investigation. Even Karl Liew was questioned. What’s next then? 

Are we saying that the Singapore government are the “insidious old boy type”? Are we saying that LML held sway over the AGC and the police in the prosecution of Parti Liyani? 

Or, putting it in another way, that at every prosecutorial crossroad, are the directions of the investigation and prosecution determined by the subtle nods and shake of LML’s head that in turns directs the AG’s head and that nudges the rest of the prosecution head and the police head? So, are the heads at the top bobbing to one synchronised beat of the insidious old boy’s tune? 

Well, our law minister has done his rounds and he presented to Parliament that there is no evidence of that, whether directly or indirectly. 

There is therefore no cause or justification for a COI. The system is not the issue in Parti’s case. It is not systemic. It is individuated, and the “goats” of the system are already singled out for further investigation and discipline. The fault thus lies not in the judicial constellation, but in the wandered-off planets in our shining, unblemished system. 

But, on that note, I do not think parti’s case is the lodestar for one to crack open the flaws of our meritocratic system where the social and income divide have created a platform that subtly discriminates, segregates and oppresses many for the benefit of a handful. 

Alas, no system is perfect and the search for utopia is a dangerous, misguided sport as it often leaves a trail of bodies behind in the name of deluded change. And yesterday’s Parliament was not the forum to dive head first into that rabbit hole. 

So, let me end with Shanmugam’s words. “The rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, the system can work well. And we’ve got to make sure of that. If it starts, then very few things can save such a country.”

Well, can’t argue with that. Leadership at the top is what the people at the bottom depends on. But the rot can come in many forms. And the most insidious ones are those where the people are in blissful ignorance.

 

Parti Liyani - Karl Liew charged with false information.

 

Karl Liew, 43, is being charged with giving false information to a public servant. He told ASP Tang that “he had found 119 pieces of clothing belonging to him inside boxes packed by Ms Parti.” 

He is also accused of “intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding before District Judge Olivia Low on July 17, 2018.”

The report states: “Accompanied by his legal team and an unidentified woman, (Karl) left the State Courts building at around 11am and entered a black BMW car.” He is represented by lawyer Adam Maniam from Drew & Napier, one of the top law firms in the country. 

Well, I started with that because with that you see a glaring contrast between someone rich in our society facing criminal charges and a maid being hauled to court and being represented pro bono with support from a voluntary migrant organisation, while living in a rented premise, and walking to court everytime she and her lawyer Anil are called to defend the charges against her. Let me flesh it out here for you. 

Assoc Editor Chua Mui Hoong has this morning written a searching article about “Justice in an imperfect world”. Let me just say that while some are leaf blower and some whistle blower, Chua is a button pusher. And one of the hot buttons she had pushed in the Parti’s case is to ask: “But was there bias? Were the police and prosecution officers more inclined to believe the Liews than the maid?”

Our Law Minister talked about the insidious old boy type “that will cause fundamental structures to be “eroded like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked.”” Yet, the question here is: “Are these old boy type and the generation that follows after them insidiously, if not unwittingly, creating a society that is more unequal than our Government can ever check and contain, or even have the political will and resolve to check and contain?”

Now, Shanmugam did say this yesterday in Parliament: “the message is, it doesn’t matter who you are. If you do wrong, action will be taken. But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against soft corruption and influence peddling.”

Well, influence peddling also comes in the hard and soft types. The hard type involves string pulling, maybe some disguised donations to a wing of a faculty in return for preferential treatment for one’s kid. But the soft type is equally insidious, because it is like the termites that Shanmugan talked about that erode the supporting beams of society. 

This is where Chua’s probing struck a cognitive dissonance chord with this question:- 

“When Singapore ask if the justice system is biased, they are asking not just whether the privileged get favourable treatment or pull strings for themselves, but also whether police officers, prosecutors, even judges, internalise social hierarchies and make decisions that favour the rich and powerful.”

“Are they more inclined to believe the testimony of someone from a similar socio-economic class as themselves? Who went to the same schools as them?”

Mind you, that soft type of influence peddling is best described as “implicit bias” and we accord that quite unthinkingly onto the rich and famous even when we profess to believe otherwise. 

Most times, it takes conscious intervention to stop and check us from bestowing what is a soft type of favourable biased leaning on people who are wealthy, knowledgeable and/or adored by thousands. 

This is something Shanmugam had spoke about and understood, but did not go far enough to fully address. He said: “People are fed up with unfair structures. Equal opportunities are drying up.” He added that we must give everyone a “fair shake” and “must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages.”

“If Liew Mum Leong did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations. It will hit our sense of fairness, equality and justice. A dent to project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals.” 

At this juncture, he then said in Parliament that the decision to sack Parti was not sudden. LML had in fact wanted to sack her way before the theft incident. 

But the reality is that he didn’t sack her. Yet, what is however sudden is when Parti was asked to pack immediately and thereafter sent home by flight. That suddenness is from the perspective of Parti, not so much LML’s. 

While I know it is important to present LML’s side, but in my view, it doesn’t change the suddenness of the decision to sack Parti from her side of things. Thus, what may not be sudden to LML doesn’t change what Parti had perceived to be sudden for her, especially when she was given so little time to pack. 

Shanmugam also talked about the threat to complain to MOM about the deployment to Karl’s house. But as it turned out, what Parti had at first wanted to complain to MOM was that she was given short notice to leave, not the deployment. 

Yet, again, the pertinent question is, “what would be in the mind of the LML and Karl at that time?” Even if Parti had told them she wanted to lodge a complaint about the short notice, it is not implausible for LML and Karl to consider the consequences arising from that complaint. And the consequence is that MOM will also find out about the deployment to Karl’s house, that breach of the rule. 

As such, it doesn’t discount what Justice Chan had said about them taking a preemptive step to sack her because she is a perceived liability, or loose canon to them. And what makes it even more intriguing is the recent charges against Karl of giving false information, which further stains his motive from the get-go.

So, let me end with this: while our law minister had addressed the soft corruption and influence peddling, what is more nuanced, but no less insidious, is the concealed working of implicit bias, and how the poor and less educated are constantly singled out and discriminated against, even sidelined and dismissed. 

That I believe is the frog-in-the-gradually-boiling-pot situation, and the consequences are like termites ingesting our foundation and our sense of fairness, equality and justice, the ideals we have built up and held dear.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part IX.

Well, Sylvia Lim’s motion on Parti Liyani’s case will not be discussed in Parliament next week. She “lost” fair and square by way of ballot. “When more than one MP have submitted an adjournment motion, the MP who gets to speak at a sitting is decided by ballot.” (Lim Min Zhang, ST). 

Between Louis Ng (whose topic for discussion is about second-hand cigarette smoking during covid) and Sylvia’s inequality issue, Ng won the ballot. 

But, not to worry, the PAP MPs will be taking on that issue. It seems like Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok), Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) and Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC) will be tabling it for discussion, with our Law Minister helming it in a ministerial statement on Monday. 

Somehow, this reminded me of the time when PM Lee wrote a memo to all his ministers, calling it the “Rules of Prudence” just after the PAP won a resounding mandate in the 2015 election. 

He called upon the ministers to be “servants of the people, not masters." He cautioned that MPs should not "mistake the strong mandate election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken."

Further, PM Lee also expected them to attend all Parliament sittings unless they have have a valid reason. He said, "Overtime, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better."

Well, that seems like a good rule of prudence - tempering electoral victory in 2015 with a precautionary note to remember one’s civic duty and responsibility. 

But the inequality issue that many people has to confront everyday, which has come to glaring-light in the Parti vs Liew Mun Leong’s case, is, I believe, something that goes beyond just a week of intense discussion in Parliament. 

We all know that. That is the reality of things. And the enduring issue is this - “How far do we want to go down that rabbit hole to address the root cause of an unequal society, with gap widening even more with the new constricted world that is emerging in the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic?”

Where does this rabbit hole then lead us? 

Mm...in my view, the first motion about addressing inequality ought to be about the disproportionate growth of privileges of the status quo. Underscore “disproportionate”. 

In any event, this is best explained with a scripture. In Matthew, Jesus says: “To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich: from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” 

I know there’s a context behind that scripture, but whether prophetic or not, the Matthew effect has become an economic law with pervasive social consequences upon which the poor often has to bear the brunt of it.

And when you throw in our technocratically fashioned, Singapore-styled meritocracy into the Matthew Effect mix, you get a disconcerting cocktail of good parliamentary intentions and well-intended incremental measures to address inequality that risks lagging (or always lagging) behind the widening rich/poor gap. 

Author Malcolm Gladwell makes this incisive observation: “To the degree that Matthew effects amplify prior advantages and disadvantages, both the fortunes of the fortunate and the misfortunes of the unfortunate are unearned and undeserved”. I guess that is why Goh Keng Swee once told banker Wee Cho Yaw that he prefers to be born lucky than rich. 

But, unearned or undeserved, nothing is stopping the rich from getting richer, with the poor getting poorer, almost by some social law of default, thanks to the ever-widening gap of inequality. 

And this brings me to the point of my post: At a time like this, when everyone below a certain economic livelihood threshold is struggling, what signal are we sending to them when the people we have voted in are enjoying such huge salaries to the extent that they are able to pile it all up for themselves and their future generation?

I know this is a touchy subject, and I am not against reasonable pay. Yet, I believe that it has to be pegged more to the conscience of society, and less to the impulse of the market. Finding the right adaptive balance is the darnest task I know. 

And I am also not blind to the different standards of living of different people. I recently read about an employee in the airline business who had suffered a 20% cut of his more than $20k monthly salary. That, to him, was quite disruptive as he has to sell his properties, dine out less, and go for some personal belt tightening measures. 

But we must never forget that, for a cleaner, who has to pay for her children’s education and living expenses, that same 20% cut can turn her world upside down. 

So, going back to the question, and when it comes to inequality, it is seriously not so much about whether we pay our ministers enough. I always believe that talent comes with a price. A fair society therefore requires that one’s pay justifies one’s talent or contribution. 

But, tbh, when a minister’s sacrifices do not differ that much from the sacrifices of a social worker, a nurse or even a cleaner, I would no doubt still expect the former (minister) to be paid more than the latter because of their coveted talent. 

Yet, at some point, especially during a crisis, where the majority is struggling to make ends meet, the “servants of the people, not masters” that PM Lee is talking about has to be such that one starts to review the justification of one’s pay that is pegged to the market, instead of pegging it to the heart/conscience of public service right? 

The more philosophical question to this is, when is enough enough? And mind you, this applies not just to prosperity gospel preacher, but to politicians as well. 

Let me end with a famous speech by LKY in Parliament in 1996, when he said that he felt very guilty of robbing his friend, Eddie Barker of $30 million had he stayed in Lee and Lee. ”Had he gone into business with my brother, he would have had easily $60 million”.

But, what is surprising is that Barker himself was bewildered by the high salary of ministers at $60k monthly, which was more than double the current salary at that time. 

And at a social gathering at his home, with a group of Oxbridge graduates, Barker shared that “he did not understand the need for huge salaries.” He even told his good friend, Subhas Anandan, that as long as he got his “cigarettes and beer”, he would be fine (page 207, “EW Barker - The People’s Minister”). 

I guess when you peg your worth to the market, and as you pile up your net worth with ever-higher standards of living, enough is seldom enough. But when you peg it to society’s conscience and to the heart of public service, you will experience what Barker had experienced in his decades of giving selflessly to the people wherever he is placed. And you will then be able to be inspired and contented with these words by the same man. 

“Life is what you make of it. There are some who inherit wealth only to squander it away, while others make their fortune on their own efforts by dint of hard work, determination and perseverance.”

“But happiness is not necessarily associated with wealth. The important thing is to have a purpose in life, a goal to achieve and the satisfaction of achieving it.”

That about sums up a life worth living for. A life defined by purpose, perseverance and contentment.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part VIII.

The case of the Maid vs the Chairman is again being talked about today. This time, a senior lawyer, Harpreet Singh Nehal, is taking up the justice’s baton to highlight some areas that are of particular concern to him.

Harpreet has written a blow-by-blow account of what went wrong in the much-ventilated case. He said: “Errors appear to have occurred at every level of the system, from the initial police investigation to the prosecutors’ decision to charge Ms Parti, an Indonesian domestic worker accused of stealing from her employer, prominent business chief Liew Mum Leong; to the handling of the case at trial and the lower court’s finding of guilt.”

I know this has been said and written about before, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, but for the sake of public perception, especially in a highly unequal society, the high horse on the issue of elitism and class prejudice is still very much alive and kicking. At times, the floggings are seen as no more as a slap on the behind rather than one calling for the top to give a proper and thorough account. 

Harpreet raised some good, credible points. He did a brief CSI and traced the steps of errors taken (and at times, allowed to be indulged) by the whole machination of the justice system. It is a long, detailed article, but let me do a quick rundown. 

If the main issue with this case is that of the broken chain of evidence collecting, then this trail has a genesis all the way up to the AGC.

First, it took 1.5 years to take the about 150 allegedly stolen items into police custody. We all know that. It is very much a public fact. And why the police took so long to do what I believe their protocol would have mandated them to do to the contrary is a mystery at this present moment. 

Well, they did record the items, but that took time too, a few weeks. In the meantime, the Liew household were allowed to use the items as and when they wanted it. And this part here is rather curious: Was it because Parti has left the country? As such, there’s no rush? 

Or, the more disconcerting part is, did the unconscious influence of the Liews have a part to play? 

Mind you, such bias is not wholly intentional, but essentially underlying, by reason that we often place those high up on the pedestal of trust, faith and hope. It is the same way we are less suspicious of religious leaders, and would never think that they would commit sexual and/or financial abuses. 

If that is the case, and if we really address it wholeheartedly, then, I suspect the issue is more systemic than just one-off. There is thus more than meets the eye about our unequal society, causing a wedge between the have and have-not, both economically and socially. 

Then, there is the question of Parti’s statements to the police. She said it was not properly interpreted to her, in a mix of English and Malay. She could not follow fully. 

Well, I believe that happens, at times. But following the trail to the next level, shouldn’t the prosecutor have caught up with it? That is, the possible contamination of the evidential chain and the lack of proper interpretation? Were the police investigators questioned about it? Did the seniors at AGC have a shot at it, and offer their unbiased, honest view? 

Now, let’s be fair. Human errors abound. We all make mistakes. It is expected, even to the best of us. This case may be one of inadvertent oversight, and I can understand that. It may even be occasional incompetence. I can sympathise.

But, to carry things this far, even up to the appeal stage, with such insistence of guilt, unfortunately gives the public impression that the prosecutors’ job is to convict, period; instead of pursuing justice even to places where one may not want to confront or admit. 

Alas, this is no doubt a chain of assumption on my part from this case, but what kept this chain taut to some certain is the DVD issue. It is what the Justice Chan had described as a “sleight-of-hand” by the prosecutor to only present evidence in a light that supports their conviction (pun unintended) rather than to submit to the objective hand of justice. 

As for the lower court judge, this is what Harpreet has to say: -

“...the burden of proof was in one instance, reversed and wrongly placed on the defence instead of the prosecution, expert evidence by the defence was ignored, and the defence was unfavourably commented on for conduct that was allowed for the prosecution. These errors were corrected on appeal.”

Like it or not, this is how things are perceived by the public. The evidential trail went from the police to the prosecutors, and then to the judge at the lower court. 

According to Harpreet, the district judge has left the courts to “assume her appointment as Deputy Senior State Counsel at the AGC’s civil division.” This was done even before the parliamentary session and the review that our Law Minister has called for. 

Lesson? Only one, and this is the real intent behind this post this morning. It is the protection of our social conscience. 

This case of the maid fighting for her freedom (for four long years) could have just been swept under the rug. But it didn’t. Thankfully, there were and are fighters of enduring justice like HOME, Anil and many more who confronted the system with moral courage, and asked deep, searching questions. 

Let me end by saying that our system is not broken - not in the way that many authoritarian and populist countries are experiencing now. It is not broken beyond redemption because, in a way, it took one justice to smoke out another in the appeal, and set things right. 

As for our government, there is the assurance of a review at the highest level by our law minister. That should be comforting. So let’s hope it is a review to clear the air for all, especially Parti, in this most unfortunate case of the misdirection of justice.

 

Parti Liyani Part VII

Seems like we have our own Arab spring on local soil, that is, the spirit of it, not so much the magnitude. But then, you never know. 

To bring you up to speed, it is the case of the Maid taking down the Chairman. Now, Parti Liyani is going for the Prosecution of the case. She is seeking leave from the Court for an inquiry to be carried out into the conduct of two prosecutors. 

After 4 years of legal torment, having to put up in Home thereby being missed by loved ones at home, having to depend on the kindness of strangers for her daily expenses, relying on a lawyer who did her case pro bono, and having to face a nerve-wrecking conviction and sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment for all 4 charges of theft, Parti is now bringing her own blend of justice to the doorsteps of the AGC. 

The main issue with this case is largely fourfold: first, the alleged collusion of the Liew household; second, the chain of custody of evidence; third the accuracy of the recorded statements; and fourth, the sleight-of-hand of the prosecutors regarding the DVD evidence. 

You will note that it was a David and Goliath struggle because, at the court below, the judge (after hearing all the evidence for a trial that lasted more than 20 days) found the Liew household’s evidence to be “clear, compelling and consistent even under lengthy cross-examination by the counsel of the Defence”. 

She found “material inconsistencies” between Parti’s evidence and her statements to the police, and opined that the Prosecution “had proven the four charges beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted Parti.” 

Yet, on appeal, all that was overturned as much as the table now is turned around. Just as David struck with a sling and a stone, Parti with support from Home, a community and her pro bono lawyer, is asking for her 4 years back from those who have taken it away from her with suspected collusion, breakage in the chain of custody of evidence, the taking of Parti’s statement without an interpreter, and the non-disclosure of relevant evidence that the DVD player was in fact defective at the trial, thereby prejudicing Parti in her reply at cross-examination. 

Alas, at this juncture, I am reminded of what CJ Menon once said: -

“Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice. As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant some weakness is found in their case.”” (PP v Wee Teong Boo @ para 136). 

CJ cited a few cases in support and wrote: -

“The accused, the Court and the community are entitled to expect that in performing his function in presenting the case against an accused person, the Prosecutor will act with fairness and detachment with the sole and unadulterated objective to establish the whole truth in accordance with the law...The role of the Prosecutor therefore excludes any notion of winning or losing a case...His role is to seek and achieve justice, and not mere to convict. The role is to be discharged with an ingrained sense of dignity and integrity.”

But this case has indeed stirred the social/economic justice waters more than one would have liked to. The Goliath on one side was so-called justice personified, with influential Snr Liew saying that it was his civic duty to report a crime. And with Liew junior asserting this at cross examination by Anil: -

“I put it to you that you were in favour of making this police report to falsely accused Parti of theft of several items.

A: I disagree, Your Honour. The police report was really my father’s decision. As far as I’m concern, it was really hassle to report to the police these items because what does it matter since we have recovered these items and we actually don’t wish for Parti Liyani to go to jail. If she---“

But Karl knew that Parti will nevertheless face jail time if convicted when such report is lodged with alleged items valued at tens of thousands of dollars. And yes, it is really a hassle for the Liews to cooperate with the police and prosecutors in their investigation and prosecution of Parti, but I believe the so-called “hassle” is far worse on Parti’s side, for lack of a better word/description, in the light of the acquittal. 

And the Goliath on the same side also included the police taking their own sweet time to secure the evidence of the alleged stolen items. Mind you, after the report lodged (on 30 Oct 2016), it took five weeks to document the items alleged to be stolen, and another 18 months to receive the items into police custody, during such time, the evidence risks being contaminated. 

This is further compounded with the following comments by Judge Chan on appeal about the failure to provide Parti with proper interpretation: -

“On the stand, Parti testified that the interpreter translated the statement back to her in a mixture of Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia and hence there may have been some aspects of which she did not understand.”

“Parti also made various allegations, inter alia, that there were differences between what she had explained and what was recorded, and the interpreter was “talking too fast” such that Parti could not “understand everything”. 

This was directly contradicted by P31 which states at the end of the statement that it was read over back to Parti in Bahasa Indonesia and she had affirmed it to be correct and true, which puts paid to her allegations.”

The above appears to me to be justice on a rush, a kind of a happy meal justice, just to pacify its customers, instead of a justice “with the sole and unadulterated objective to establish the whole truth in accordance with the law.”

Then comes the prosecutors and the DVD issue. You can read it at your own time. But Justice Chan opined that “the Prosecutor’s sleight-of-hand technique...demonstrate in court that the Pioneer DVD player was working,” even when it was clearly “spoilt” as it could not play DVD, sadly shows how “happy meal justice” tends to lead to happy results only for some people in society, leaving the rest fighting for their lives, and everything they have, just to bring the justice that CJ Menon earlier talked about to proper light. 

Mind you, bringing such justice to light costs a lot of money and only the rich and powerful can afford them, while those who can’t afford will just have to accept their fate and serve their time, even though they might - like Parti - be acquitted strictly based on the proper standard of evidential rule in the rigorous way Justice Chan had applied it. 

In any event, if the prosecutors are “more than advocates and solicitors”, and are “ministers of justice”, then I guess it is important to ask (at the Parliamentary sessions next month) what, or who, if any, at the higher levels gave the assigned prosecutors such driven cause to pursue a maid all the way to the appellate court with such conviction to, well, maintain the conviction? 

Surely, the act of such pursuit of justice to establish the whole truth has to be an act known (and discussed with) by their supervising superiors right? And the evidence given by the Liews and the police in their cavalier way of securing and the custody of the evidence must also have been duly reviewed and scrutinised by the proper authority in the upper levels of AGC right? (Ironically, it appears that the hand that had pursued such justice is, or will be, the same hand that has been appointed (deputy AG) to review the whole process). 

For if “the role of the Prosecutor therefore excludes any notion of winning or losing a case,” then I hope, in Parliament next month, the elected ministers of parliament will hold the proper ministers of justice or justice system to account, regardless of whatever levels they may reside, and not to, as CJ puts it, “timorously discontinue proceedings (in Parliament) the instant some weakness is found in their case”, or in this case, to stop short at going to the commanding roots of the issue. 

After all said, let me just end with this cross-examination between Anil and Karl.

“Q: You know accusing somebody of steeling [sic] is a serious problem or matter, serious matter, correct?

A: That’s why we are here.

Q: And that is why, we are trying to establish, why you or your family after discarding items, would want to say, “Wait a second. Now I want that back.”

[emphasis added]

A: No, I don’t want it back. I want to report a crime. As the citizen a crime happens in my household, if it happened in the household, you don’t need to be a lawyer to say report it....

Q: And would you further like to concede that you trumped-up certain parts of this Police Report?

...

Q: Trumped-up.

A: Negative.

Q: So, that the police can take action immediately.

A: Negative.

Q: Why do I say that?

A: I don’t do these things. I have no---

Q: Because---

A: I no motivation to come up anything, to accuse anybody whose [sic] innocent. ...”

Well, with the above in mind, what can I say about the turn of events in the State versus Parti case? 

I guess I can only say that after proving her innocence, Parti is now lodging her own report to bring to justice those she thinks are guilty of (or responsible for) her 4-year legal woes. I believe, she like Karl has “no motivation to come up anything, to accuse anybody (who is) innocent...”.

 

And that seems to be the most apt narrative describing the recent turnaround, which was no doubt a hassle to Karl. But it was nevertheless a lived-through hell for Parti.

 

Parti Liyani Saga VI

We all want an equal (or more equal) society. But at what cost? 

LKY once said: “You want an equal society with low growth? Or an unequal society with high growth then you take part of the growth and support the lower strata? With no growth, everything goes wrong...We work towards equal opportunities. Not equal results but equal opportunities in life.”

But then, what is equal opportunities in life when the life you are living is clearly deprived of opportunities as compared to those at the top? What then becomes of such “equal opportunities” when a society suffers from systemic inequality, that is, an evolved system unwittingly geared towards the rich and powerful as a matter of both default and design?

You see, a child with better tuition, a good home environment and engaging parentage would surely provide much more opportunities from the start as compared to a child of the same intelligence, but he or she comes from a broken, large family with barely enough to feed all. The result differs much because the opportunities differ even more. 

In fact, the Parti Liyani’s case is another example of such deprivation. She may be a migrant worker, but her 4-year battle in the courts is not unfamiliar to many in the lower rung of our society who have experienced similar legal, economic and/or social oppression as citizens.

In today’s article by Lydia Lim, she wrote about an interview with the president of migrant workers’ advocacy group TWC2. 

In a statement, Ms Debbie Fordyce, said: “In Yani’s case, she was arrested for on Dec 2, 2016, charged on Aug 31, 2017, and has spent almost four years at Home’s shelter, waiting for the conclusion of her case. We also provided her a bailor for the sum of $15,000, an option which is not available for most migrant workers accused of crimes.”

“These migrant workers are often not allowed to work, thus they are reliant on organisations like Home to provide them shelter, food, and financial assistance. During this time, they are also not allowed to leave the country, and have no means of seeing their families back home.”

“Consequently, by the time many migrant workers are presented with charges, they choose to plead guilty even if they are of the view that they are innocent of the charges that they are facing. The time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the court process.”

So what do we then make of LKY’s trade off between equality and growth? Is the cost really low (or lower) growth, that is, making society more equal will eat into the economic pie, threatening our competitiveness, and causing greater hardship to the poor with rising unemployment? As such, a child from that family will then suffer even more when dad comes home one evening breaking down, because he has just got fired and the family savings is practically depleted? 

But, bearing the above in mind, and if we reflect even deeper, isn’t there a point in economic growth when we will have to tell ourselves that if we carry on the way we have been carrying on, where the rich continue to store their wealth in the equivalent of financial warehouses situated locally and abroad, having enough for generations to come, the trade off will over time be far worse than just lower economic growth and global competitiveness, thereby leaving a society that is not just divided, but broken, disillusioned and spent? 

Food for thought?

Well, in another article today by editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang, he too addressed the red hot mala dish on the social justice menu after the Parti Liyani’s case. And one of them is the “question of privilege and entitlement enjoyed by the rich and influential, including their access to justice and corridors of power.” 

He quoted Law Minister Shanmugan saying that “we have to look at that, and deal with what went wrong.” 

Actually, the reality of what went wrong is not something we are completely blind to. There is nothing new here. Any historian will tell you that it is recycled or repackaged problem of society as the rich and poor divide deepens. 

Mind you, this is not the coming together of world renown scientists trying to solve the mystery to the M-theory (M-theory is a theory in physics that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory). But it is no less challenging though, because it is a problem with many names and many suggested solutions, yet it is often the lack of political will and moral courage that bedevils the resolve to bring it to some level of restored trust, hope and resolution. 

I suspect this is so, or made worse, because of the ostentatiousness of wealth at the top. It is largely a problem of the attitude of those who have and can’t help but flaunt it. It is therefore both an attitude of entrenched self-preservation, thereby leaving all goodwill measures half-heartedly implemented, and of ensuing self-enrichment, thereby perpetuating the problem even further.

Recall Thorstein Veblen's sociology of conspicuous consumption, which “produced the term invidious consumption”, that is, “the ostentatious consumption of goods that is meant to provoke the envy of other people; and the term conspicuous compassion, the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor, with a display of superior socio-economic status.”

As such, as the rich and poor divide increases, what outstrips lower growth as a cost to society is that we get a shallower society, one that is so consumed with conspicuous consumption so as to bring attention to oneself or one’s wealth for the sole intent of provoking “envy of other people” that we lose our humanity in the trade off as its greater cost. 

Alas, nothing is spared in such a society where even virtue of compassion becomes a means to an end, as Thorstein puts it, “the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor.”

So, going back to LKY’s trade off, I suspect that there is a greater hidden cost to society than just losing out on growth (assuming lower growth here is strictly measured in GDP terms and not growth in happiness, contentment and community). And maybe, the story of the maid taking down a chairman will inject some much needed fresh impetus into a very ancient subject that humanity has been struggling with since the first settlers claimed lands to plant vegetation for market sale and kicked off the first legal call for private land ownership, and its protection and perpetuation. 

Let me nevertheless end with the appreciation speech which former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon gave for retired MP in July 2006. 

“Like the newly MPs, we retirees were also at one time greenhorns in the world of politics but we learned from the experience of others who came before us. One of the most valuable pieces of advice imparted to me by my older colleagues when I first came into Parliament came from the late EW Barker, who said: “Be humble and do not be overwhelmed by your newly accorded status”. And to that, I might add, it also helps if you come across as warm and approachable to your constituents, and not one who lords over them.””

If you missed it, the operative words are “one who lords over them”. For after the Liyani and Liew household legal saga, which stretched over 4 years of trauma for the starkly deprived, the one cardinal sin of an already unequal society like ours is to even give the perception that the ones sitting at the top are lording over those at the bottom. 

I guess our Law Minister will have his parliamentary plate full next month when he opens up the can of worms on “the question of the privilege and entitlement enjoyed by the rich and influential, including their access to justice and corridors of power."