[LottiFurmann]

Tey Sex Scandal: Let's Get Personal

I am heartened by the response to my previous thread, which shows that contrary to the PAP’s perception, Singaporeans are not daft. However, it does seem that the mainstream media is hell bent on conducting a smear campaign against the principals in this case while the matter is before the Courts, the only institution that has the power to decide whether a person is guilty or otherwise of a crime with which he has been charged.

Singaporeans, ordinary as well as those who are members of the elite, need to remember that if the Powers that Be can ignore the rules of the game and subject the Professor to a “trial by media”, it can happen to YOU too. Nonetheless, the game is now less skewed in the Government’s favour, thanks largely to the Internet and its contributors. Rumpole intends to do his part in this game change.

Let’s shift the focus a little and turn the spotlight (in a non-defamatory and purely factual manner) on “peripheral” characters in this soap opera.

Dean of Law Faculty, NUS: Simon Chesterman

This chap succeeded Tan Cheng Han, a Malaysian most of his life, who had been the previous dean. The University has a habit of appointing Malaysians to be dean of this important faculty. Native Singaporeans, when appointed as dean, tend to have a short tenure. One wonders why? Can’t be trusted to enforce the wishes of the Powers that Be to the letter?

Another long serving dean who was a Malaysian most of his life was Tan Lee Meng, who now sits as a judge of the Supreme Court. Tan Lee Meng was a roommate at Raffles Hall of one Wong Kan Seng and his pet name for this buddy is “One Can’t Sing”. How do I know? Suffice to say that I heard it from the horse’s mouth in front of many, many other people. Not only can Wong not sing, he is not even capable of keeping the windows of a strategic toilet shut. Wong, of course, is also well connected, which of course does not hurt the career path of his college roommate, Tan Lee Meng.

Back to Chesterman, he has married well indeed, his wife is Patricia Tan, which makes him the son-in-law of Tony Tan, President of the Little Red Dot. Chesterman does not believe in “humanitarian intervention”. This can be discerned from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Chesterman

In other words, he believes that the enforcement of the “no-fly zones” in Iraq and Kosovo was not justified, notwithstanding that such “no-fly zones” were instrumental in the overthrow of corrupt and inhumane dictators in those two countries preventing needless loss of innocent lives as these dictators hang on desperately to power. By analogy, I think he would not support any form of intervention in Syria even though Assad junior is subjecting his own people to genocide.

Odd that a professor with such a THIRD WORLD mentality can be appointed to lead a law faculty that aspires to be in the same league as those from the FIRST WORLD? However, did the Old Fart not hint at the use of the military to keep Singaporeans in line when push comes to shove? In such a scenario, will not the Old Fart’s plan have a greater chance of success if the Great Powers in the UN Security Council do not intervene?

Of course, as a lecturer in the faculty, the accused professor reports directly or indirectly to its dean, Chesterman, son-in-law of Tony Tan. That is a fact. The sequence of events is also on the record - Chesterman was appointed in January and investigations into Tey’s case began in April. Go figure whether these facts are relevant or not.

President of Singapore: Tony Tan

This chap is related to “He who must be Obeyed”, being the nephew of Tan Chin Tuan who in turn is the uncle-in-law of the Old Fart. More details can be found at http://singaporeelection.blogspot.hk...-kuan-yew.html

What is his role in our version of the Westminster model and more importantly does Mr. Tan stand up to the test?

The President’s role is to protect our nation’s financial reserves. So how is it that he does not know whether a US$4 billion loan commitment to the IMF has been properly approved in accordance with procedures required by our laws? Does he not think that US$4 billion of YOUR money deserve his full attention?

During the Presidential Election 2011, attention was drawn to his son, Patrick Tan and his super-long disruption from NS. This chap has another son, Peter Tan, his eldest, whose A level grades were not up to the mark for admission to law faculty. This son studied at ACJC and his graduating class was 2SB1. In the 80s, law faculty had already become a “hard to get in” faculty requiring outstanding A level grades. Every student that does not get in on his own merits deprives another student of an opportunity to study law. It is as simple as that. Rumpole got into NUS on his own merits. Chen Show Mao was forced to study law as he could not get into medical school notwithstanding that he was top student of his batch. Go figure what that says about “meritocracy” as practised in the Little Red Dot.

With his multi-million dollar salary, can Tony not afford to send his son to a law school abroad? Sure, with his poor grades, sonny won’t be able to get into Cambridge or Oxford, but surely Bristol or Warwick will do? For the record, Peter Tan did NOT get a second class upper from NUS. If I am not wrong, he got third class honours – the lowest grade. However, he went on to join Shook Lin & Bok, one of the top law firms in Singapore and which is closely associated with OCBC Bank, where Tony Tan, Tan Chin Tuan and Yong Pung How once held the reins. Shook Lin & Bok was founded in Kuala Lumpur by none other than Yong Pung How's father.

Peter Tan, whilst not academically gifted, was to his credit an excellent swimmer, both at ACS and ACJC, winning many medals. However, during his NS, he was rated Pass C and served in a clerical, non-combat role. This seems a bit odd, don’t you think? What’s your excuse Peter? Flat foot? How is asthma compared to flat foot in terms of impact on combat fitness? Many sons of less well off Singaporeans have asthma and yet are rated Pass A. Go figure for yourself whether this has anything to do with the “White Horse” syndrome.

Oh, by the way, Justice Pillai, before he became a judge of the Supreme Court, was also a senior partner in Shook Lin & Bok. As a judge of the Supreme Court, his annual PENSIONABLE salary is S$234,600 (see Judges’ Remuneration Order, G.N. No. S331/1994). For such a high pensionable salary, don’t you think we are entitled to expect a kind of judgment on the by-election case that involves a principled balancing of interests – the basic human rights of citizens versus the efficient administration of the State – rather than one that is only worthy of an overpaid exponent of “high school grammar”?

Former Chief Justice: Yong Pung How

This chap here is a fellow Hakka and bosom friend of “He who must be Obeyed”. From 1971 to 1989, he was a banker until he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in 1989 and within little more than a year became Chief Justice! His appointment as Chief Justice “just so happened” to be very close in time to the “retirement” of the Old Fart as PM in favour of seat warmer Goh Chok Tong. He was a senior figure in the Malaysian Chinese Association (“MCA”) a political party across the Causeway concerning itself mainly with the chauvinist protection of Chinese business interests before crossing the Rubicon (Causeway to be exact) after the 1969 racial riots in Kuala Lumpur, his true hometown.

How is this chap a “peripheral” character in this soap opera? Well, the Professor was a judicial law clerk to the former CJ and Yong was CJ from 1990 to 2006. If there are key personalities responsible for the “Judicial Internalising of Singapore’s Supreme Political Ideology”, for a “Singapore Consensus” that is defined by a “Supreme Executive, Supine Judiciary and Suppliant Profession”, would this person not be one of the star players by reason of his long reign at the top of the judicial hierarchy?

This is not the proper forum to launch into a discourse on the demerits of CJ Yong’s various judgments during a long and undistinguished tenure at the helm of Singapore’s judiciary. Suffice to say that Yong is no Lord Denning (every student of the common law will know this English version of Justice Pao and his exploits) and excels at nothing other than “high school grammar” and a “Four Walls” doctrine towards the interpretation of a Constitution, the highest law of the land, that is supposed to enshrine the core values of a nation and protect the individual’s rights against State intrusion. For more detailed criticisms of this judge’s faulty reasoning in his judicial decisions, please see the articles posted on the Professor’s website at http://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/about/

Yong was himself embroiled in another soap opera – the Boon Suan Ban saga. Boon was the remisier of the former CJ. It appears that he wrote 2 letters to the former CJ over some financial matters. Following that, Yong commenced civil defamation proceedings against Boon and at the same time the AG commenced a criminal defamation suit.

In the criminal proceeding, Boon pleaded guilty. Amazingly, the District Court judge did not pass the usual sentences but ordered that Boon be detained in a mental facility at the President’s pleasure. The judge apparently did not see it fit to obtain independent medical opinion as to whether or not Boon was indeed of unsound mind nor consider whether it was safe to accept a guilty plead from someone who is allegedly of unsound mind! If and when we do have a Lord Denning in our courts, he would surely ask this District Court judge to go have his own head examined!

Counsel to the Law Student: Subhas Anandan

It appears that the law student has picked the right man to be her counsel. For Subhas had himself been FIXED before, by a delinquent police officer, and his story had a happy ending.

If I may summarise from what I can recall after browsing through his autobiography: he was set up by a police officer with whom he had a row over some temple matters and charged with being a member of a secret society; his father was a grassroots activist who knew Goh Keng Swee personally; Goh agreed to help when he was Acting PM while the Old Fart went on one of his numerous overseas trips at taxpayers’ expense with wife, kids and the whole entourage as the Old Fart could not be bothered with such minor details as a young man’s life and reputation; after investigation it was revealed that Subhas had been FIXED and the police officer was punished. I don’t recall the Government ever giving Subhas a formal apology or paying any damages, but I do recall that the initial Straits Times reports were calculated to give the impression that Subhas was guilty as hell.

One wonders what would have happened if Subhas’ father did not know Goh Keng Swee personally? How many ordinary Singaporeans are blessed in this manner? Would it not be better to place reliance on a truly FIRST WORLD judicial system that has as its core value the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and not tolerate any sort of hanky pankies that would “prejudice a fair trial”? Would not any Singaporean, elite or otherwise, sleep better at night knowing that he lives in a country that truly has rule OF law instead of rule BY law? Do you think we would be better served by judges that have the boldness and independence to balance the basic human rights of ordinary citizens on the one hand and efficient administration of the State on the other rather than judges that are no more than overpaid exponents of “high school grammar”?

Piecing together the Jigsaw

Now, with the above information on the 3 “peripheral” characters –

1) Simon the son-in-law and strong objector to the overthrow of vile and evil dictators through UN intervention;

2) Tony the President who is supposed to look after YOUR reserves but seemed not have had his eyes on the ball with regards to the US$4 billion IMF loan commitment; and

3) Yong the ex-boss of the accused and person who spent many years at the top of a judicial hierarchy, described by his ex-subordinate as “Supine” and having “Internalised” the Executive’s supreme political ideology contrary to the Judiciary’s role as protector of citizens’ basic human rights

– I think members of the discerning public are now in a better position to put the pieces of the jigsaw together.

Do you think we have a vile and evil dictator in Singapore? Who said he will consider using the military on his own citizens if push comes to shove?

Judicial Power is vested Solely in the Courts

It is fitting to end this thread with a reminder to the Straits Times, Mediacorp, AG’s Chambers and NUS that Article 93 of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force.”

And to the morons at NUS (standards have dropped drastically since I graduated), should any reporter ask “what are you going to do if the Professor is found guilty, if this, if that; what do you know about this, that, blah, blah, blah”, your proper course of action is to follow Pinky Loon’s example and say:

“The matter is now sub-judice (before the Courts which are the only institution that has power to decide guilt or otherwise) and we can’t comment any further without the risk of being held in contempt of court for prejudicing a fair trial. Amen”.

尽信书，则不如无书

He who believes everything that he reads might as well be illiterate – Confucius

Rumpole of the Bailey

* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.