Anil David - A life lived for self and others.

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. But for Anil David, 53, (“Anil”) he got much more than just a fishing lesson in life. He got a community that gave him a second chance and he made the most of it.

But for Anil, the proverbial second chance saw him going to prison thrice before he woke up and decided that he would turn his life around for good. 

I write this post because I believe Anil’s journey thus far epitomises a life that had personally experienced two ways of living: one for self, and the other, for others. And his life is well-narrated by Wong Kim Hoh, Deputy Life Editor, in ST today. 

At eight, Anil was sexually molested by his late uncle. Over a year, he was a silent victim. ”This episode scarred him, filling him with self-doubt, low self esteem and trust issues.” As a result, Anil “flunked his O levels, passing only English.”

After his national service, Anil started selling insurance. He met with some successes with his creativity. 

He recalled that he would search the obituary for Chinese towkays, attend their wake, and help serve drinks. When approached by the son at the wake and asked how he came to know the deceased, Anil would say, “Your dad gave me very good advice.” With a grin, Anil said: “One month later, the son became my insurance agent.”

But “impatient for the good things in life - fast cars and designer labels - (Anil) took shortcuts, by illegally dipping into his clients’ funds.” This was to be his first brush with law, when he served five years in prison in 1995 for siphoning nearly $100k. At that time, he was married. 

But, even after serving time, Anil was not done with living his life the way he wanted. He said, “sin is delicious, like a juicy mango. But too much of it will give you diabetes.”

In 2004, that diabetic awakening came when he was caught for the third time and served a prison term of eight years. “I was really down, I felt I had come to the end of the road. My wife and two daughters wanted to have nothing to do with me.” Can you blame them?

But three times’ the charm for Anil when it comes to second chances. And in prison, he found faith, thereby ending a life lived just to please himself. At that crossroad of true brokenness, Anil vowed to rebuild his life, reconcile with his family, and “apply himself so he could pick up new skills.”

In any event, that crossroad was timely as Anil was assigned to work in a call centre in prison. It was there that the chief executive of the call centre talent-spotted him. He noticed that Anil was good at selling. And after he was released, Anil started his own social enterprise, namely, Agape Connecting People. That route was not easy. He had a few hurdles to cross. 

First, he was determined to reconcile with his family. He said, “I chose the name Agape because it means unconditional love. I’m here because of the unconditional love of my wife and daughters.”

Anil’s first step to reconciliation was to write a letter to his elder daughter through the Yellow Ribbon Project. Soon, his wife and daughters forgave him. I believe that was the second prison Anil needed to be truly set free from. For the first prison (he was released from) was when, in his solitary cell, he found faith. 

In the interview, Anil was asked what does purpose mean to him? He said: “Dedicating myself to a cause beyond myself. It fuels my motivation in life, giving my life meaning and direction, inspiring me to make a significant contribution to the world...I know my God, from whom I get strength, leads me in this pursuit.”

With that purpose and strength, which was essentially others-directed, Anil found faith of another kind, that is, the faith of a community that believed in him. In addition to his wife, who pawned her jewellery to invest in his call centre in 2012, the chief executive whom he had worked for in prison plonked in $20k as initial capital. Anil later repaid him after one year of business. 

But the community support did not end there. With his past records, Anil faced many closed doors in his solicitation for financial support. He was just “unbankable”. But two kind souls, who headed investment firms, however saw beyond Anil’s past, and invested nearly $500k into his business. “They told me: “if you ever become all for profit, we will pull out all our investment.””

Stepping out of the crossroad of second chances, Anil put his heart and soul into first rebuilding his life and family, and second, rebuilding his vocational calling. He thus worked a 18-hour day, “often surviving on cup noodles and preparing all the materials himself.”

Today, Agape Connecting People (“Agape”), a social enterprise, has “turned around the lives of nearly 600 people”. It employs nearly 150 staff, “half serving time in prison and the rest are ex-offenders, senior citizens and other “disadvantaged people wanting a second chance in life.” 

During covid CB period, Agape was the “”first level triage” for distressed callers, helping to calm them down before channeling their calls to the hotline’s trained professionals, including psychologists, counselors and social workers.”” 

Agape has also expanded to “offer a full suite of services including call handling, e-mail marketing, Webshat interaction and social media management.” Currently, its chief executive is one Joseph See, who had left his job as head of acquisition and retention at StarHub. 

Joseph said: “I guess it’s a calling, something I felt I needed to do. Anil wanted to impact more people and couldn’t do it alone. I felt he needed help and my former bosses gave me their blessings.”

All in all, the mission to stand at the crossroads for those who need a shoulder to cry on and a hand to hold gave a new lease of life and freedom for Anil and the many staff under his leadership. In fact, Agape won a slew of awards including The Most Impactful Social Enterprise (2016). 

Anil said: “It was a breakthrough I have been praying for. It affirms my belief that work is a platform where ex-offenders can redeem, and other disadvantaged people can prove themselves.”

Lesson? I have one, and it is in Anil’s own words. He was asked, “what do you say to cynics who say: A leopard never changes its spots.”“

This was his answer: “A leopard with dreams and measurable goals in the company of good men can change, but a leopard who persists in keeping bad company will find it hard.”

I guess our “spots” should never define us. We all know that. It has even become cliché. Yet, our greatest enemy is still ourselves. 

Anil was practical enough to say (or imply) that good company is half the battle, for what is still needed are dreams and measurable goals. The former is conception, the latter is application, and with good company comes the transformation. 

Here, I believe a man or woman who keeps dreaming, even with dreams marred by spots, is someone who never gives up on himself (or herself). And a person who never gives up, will never allow those dreams to die stillborn. For the womb of one’s hope comes at three points of intersection: never giving up, going beyond ourselves, and the faith of good community and empowering circumstances will eventually meet us at our crossroad. 

So, let me end by saying that, most times, second chances and successes are strange bedfellows. When they come to those who are not ready to receive them, it can ruin them. For second chances can be taken for granted, and successes can change us for the worse. 

But when it comes at a point of true repentance, with a heart and conscience surrendered to a purpose beyond ourselves, second chances and successes will transform our dreams to reality, and change lives for the good of society.

Indeed, when you teach men how to fish, you feed them for life. But when you give them a second chance, at a crossroad when their time has finally come, they become fishers of men for society, and they will feed many others for a lifetime. Amen.

 

The Lust of Medication.

 

Dr Julian Ong (“Dr Ong”) won his appeal against one Serene Tiong (“Serene”). Dr Ong is a private colorectal surgeon. But the appeal, I guess, was a victory for another doctor too, a psychiatrist at SGH, Dr Chan Herng Nieng (“Dr Chan”). 

Let me flesh out the case for you this Sunday morning. 

The successful appeal means that Dr Ong got the judgment below overturned. The judgment below was the dismissal of his defamation suit against Serene who accused the two doctors of “taking advantage of, and using their positions to “source” and “groom” vulnerable female patients and colleagues for sex.””

On appeal, the high court judge felt that one of Serene’s accusations was not made out and the other did not qualify on purely technical ground. I will explain the second one later. But here is the first accusation, which concerns Serene herself.

Judge See “did not accept the district judge’s findings that (Serene) was one of Dr Chan’s vulnerable female patients, noting that she already had an intimate relationship with him before he provided her with Xanax for her anxiety.”

As such, there was no collusion between the two doctors to take advantage of Serene as a vulnerable patient because she already had an extramarital affair with Dr Chan before she was his patient.

Now comes the second accusation, this concerns another patient. Here is the twist. 

Unlike the first accusation, Judge See however accepted the district judge’s finding that “what Dr Ong did in giving the telephone number of one his patients, referred to as K, to Dr Chan for him to “try his luck at getting her to have sex” was tantamount to colluding to take advantage of K””. 

With that, you may ask, shouldn’t the defamation suit (by Dr Ong) against Serene fail? For there is no defamation if the accusation is true right? Not so fast. 

Judge See said that “K was one patient, and (that one case) does not constitute vulnerable patients in plural.” 

One therefore doesn’t cut it. Or one case does not a charge make. And therefore, the accusation was not made out, on a technicality. It was a technicality that is largely grammatical, dealing with the plural and the singular verb. 

To be thorough, Serene did accuse them of taking advantage of four other women colleagues, but Justice See noted that “the two could not be proven as colleagues, and the other two were not a “potential target of collusion.”” 

So, after all’s said, you take your victim or case where they have fallen, and for Dr Ong’s suit, he had his day in the appellate court and won. That should be all’s well for the doctors right? Well, not so fast. 

Justice See may have handed Dr Ong the judgment he wanted by overturning the lower court’s decision, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, he said. I will explain why later, but here’s an interlude for consideration. 

For those law students reading this, it is a good case where morality and the law depart ways - at least for this aspect of their journey towards justice. For even where there is provable evidential inference via text messages between the two doctors that they had taken advantage of a vulnerable patient, or at the very least, violated her trust, and mind you, this is also a tale of extramarital affair, as an aside point, Dr Ong still won the defamation suit because the law is strict when it comes to proving your defence of justification, that is, that what you said or accused of them is true as a defence. 

So, if your accusation deals with more than one patient, and no more than one patient is proven in court, then, your defence of “vulnerable patients” with an “s” fails. 

Yes, the law judicially splits hair over the singular and the plural. But this, of course, does not prevent further investigation into other probable improprieties committed by the doctor or doctors, as Justice See said, “Dr Chan’s admission to touching his colleague inappropriately in the past “may be a matter for the SMC to consider looking into further.””

So, let me end here with three lessons. 

First, Justice See said that “the only pattern revealed is that the two doctors were consummate opportunists, constantly looking out for women with sex in mind.” 

Well, one may be vindicated in the court of law, yet the vindication that comes for the soul of men goes beyond the remedy of the court. Even equity applied by the firmest hand of justice cannot strengthen the roots of a wayward soul. 

Truly, morality matters because, for all the conquests in this world, the greatest is still the battle of a lifetime to overcome the one within. 

Second, Justice See also said, “They are perfectly competent doctors and their sex lives are, of course, private matters. But their blatant treatment of women as sex objects sullies whatever professional reputation they might have built up for themselves.”

Proverbs 22:1 reads: “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold.” That’s true, because “the memory of the righteous is always a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.” 

We are all fallen, in our own ways. In a world where the pursuit of wealth and fame is endless, the preservation of one’s name is always timely, and timeless. 

We want to leave this world with a legacy to pass down to our children, a legacy that shines in the darkness and not one that contributes to it. And a good name is that city on the hill we leave behind, to light the way for our loved ones to follow. 

Lastly, Justice See said, “(their) smug boasts of their trysts with various women, as well as the demeaning terms in which they gloatingly describe their sexual conquests, speak to their true character.” 

Well, it is said that character is the sure foundation of all worthwhile success. And redemption, if I may add, is the cornerstone one lays to stabilise his shaky foundation. 

Truly, in this journey of constant stumbles and falls, character’s best companion is his endearing brother of remorse and change. And I hope this is one lesson the doctors will always bear in mind and in their hearts. Have a blessed Sunday.

 

Trump got Covid-19.

Trump got covid-19. 

By now, it is a one-day-old news, and in today’s fast media world, that’s old news. Trump however joins his beloved counterpart, Boris, and other national leaders in Russia, Brazil, India, Australia, on the Covid-list. 

But don’t worry, he will get the best medical attention, the quickest and the most thorough, because after all, he is the President of the most advanced nation. Get-well, hallmark-like greetings from leaders all over are in fact pouring in. Japan, Korea and Israel are all wishing him and the First Lady a swift recovery. 

You can say that Trump will lick the virus and lick it good (pardon the pun). 

Well, tbh, I too wish him and Melania well, and a quick recovery (as my disagreement with him is not personal, but on principles). 

I guess if the most powerful leader in the world, surrounded by the best medical team and security guards, whose guards incidentally were also infected, has himself contracted the world’s most elusive and smart virus, then I trust that no one, especially in a nation under Trump, is safe from it. So, in a quick return jab to what he had said about Biden’s low class ranking in the recent debate, you can also say that Trump was outsmarted by a microorganism that was, well, in a class of its own. 

But, after all’s said, here’s an innocent plead to his die-hard fans: the infection effectively concludes one’s verdict of the way Trump has handled the pandemic, right? It was a resounding failure, right? 

However you would like to spin it, even when you twist it to say that he is going for herd immunity, an idea toyed and rejected by Boris, you can’t deny that when the enemy has entered the home of your leader, who was supposed to be well and heavily guarded, all other homes that follow his attitude and way of doing things thus far, will equally be, if not more so, sitting ducks for covid-19, right?

(As an aside, I know this is not the time to kick a man while he is, well, down. But that is not my point. My point is about self-awareness, self-examination, and self-correction. If you can’t even look at your own St James’ mirror and spot the flaws staring right back at you, and then do something about it, and go save lives and a nation in need of a strong, firm and morally courageous leadership, then the hope of a nation resting on your shoulders has all gone to waste. And mind you, admitting one’s error and making timely changes is not in any way deemed as a seal of failure. It is in fact the shining emblem of a successful leader, one of humility, character and integrity). 

But guys, strap on, and sadly, Trump, being true to his nature, will do none of that (pls prove me wrong). As I write this, he had just tweeted, saying, “I think I’m doing very well.” I trust knowing his megalomaniac ambitions, almost unmitigated since Nov 3 is drawing near, he will do a Neo resurrection of the Matrix Revolutions. 

The plot for the likes of Trump is nothing prophetic. Compared to the 200k death in America, largely faceless passing of lives, Trump will milk all the media coverage he can squeeze. The covid pandemic may be uncharted territory for global leaders, but we must not forget that we are entering into his home ground with this personal infection. Recall the reality tv series - The Apprentice? 

Mind you, this territory is Trump’s territory. He knows how to make a grand entrance, with alien-like floodlights behind him. He will beat the virus. He will set the stage for such glorified comeback. He will bathe in it like a young prince on coronation day. He will emerge from the spikey ashes like a rising American bald eagle with implanted follicle. 

That is the predictable Trump we have all come to know; for an orange crab can’t walk straight.

The world will then return to cheer for their hero. This time it will be loud and bold. And every word that comes out from the resurrected Trump will be gold. 

Just as the spike in the coronavirus infection comes in the daily thousands and deaths in the hundreds, the spike in his ratings will hit the roof. The world is looking for a hero, and the one who comes back from near death is the best (for when we lose authentic leadership, the leadership left for us to contend with are largely shallow ones).

Here, I recall these words by James Madison: “No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.” 

But, he is forgetting that “order and stability” is not the only way to govern. In a democracy, one as wild and divided as America as it stands today, where partyism trumps bipartisanship, tribalism trumps diversity, and racism trumps unity, one can still govern well, at least for a glamorised electoral season, by exploiting disorder and instability to perpetuate one’s stranglehold. 

That is why in the Art of the Deal, Trump unveiled his art of dealing with people with his signature playbook rule applied with equal foolhardy zeal from the boardroom to the Oval Office: -

“I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.”

Anyway, let me end with what one author wrote about Trump leadership: -

“He was like a twelve-year-old in an air traffic control tower, pushing the buttons of government indiscriminately, indifferent to the planes skidding across the runway and the flights frantically diverting away from the airport. This was not how it was supposed to be.” (“A Warning Anonymous”). 

That about sums up how Trump had handled the coronavirus pandemic. It has in fact come home to roost. And the one virus the commander-in-chief has spent his last year of his first presidential term fighting against, ironically, breaking all the rules of social distancing and mask-wearing in public, and boasting that like a miracle it will go away by April, is now battling with it from inside his body.

No doubt, he will overcome it. But the more important and urgent lesson is, will he learn his lesson? I really doubt it. Prove me wrong...pls.

 

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.