The Power of Clemency So there’s been a lot of talk about the Presidential power of clemency and where the decision making powers lie. Justice S Chong has merely restated what most law students already know (assuming they were paying attention in Constitutional law). The question is whether Singapore’s situation is unique or it shares this common heritage with it’s Commonwealth brethren. First we should look to our Malaysian friends because the Singaporean constitution was copied of the Malaysian Constitution (the 1963 one). Although both Constitutions have since gone on to develop in their own special ways. [Malaysia] Article 40a (1)  In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet. [Singapore] Article 21. (1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. As can be seen the two articles are similar in their first part. It seems the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also bound by the advice of the Cabinet. [Malaysia] Article 42 (1)The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all offences which have been tried by court-martial and all offences committed in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all other offences committed in his State. The current Malaysian Constitution differs in wording from our own Article 22P. However if you look at Article 42 (11): [Malaysia] Article 42 (11) For the purpose of this Article, there shall be constituted a single Pardons Board for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the Federal territory of Labuan and the provisions of Clauses (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Pardons Board under this Clause except that reference to “Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri” shall be construed as reference to the Minister responsible for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory of Labuan. The Yang di-Pertuan Negeri are supposed to be advised by a Pardons Board, but that role of “Yang di-Pertuan Negeri” is supplanted by a Minister for the Federal Territories. So if we read all the provisions highlighted together, Malaysia allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to grant pardons, but under the advice of the Cabinet, with the Minister in charge of Federal Territories acting on the Agong’s behalf as Chairman of the Pardons Board. So if Yong were caught in Malaysia (his own country), the situation would be the same. Somehow it is doubtful the Malaysian government would argue that the Agong was free to act on his own and can choose to ignore their advice. Ok. So maybe we’re still not convinced that under the precedent from our own Constitution and from the Constitution closest to us, the President must act under the Cabinet’s advice and is not free to choose. We should look at the parent constitution of both Singapore and Malaysia, which would be the Indian Constitution and also the English constitutional practice on clemency. What has been discovered comes from the Indian Legal Service (here) Their take on the current position on Pardon in the UK At present, the monarch exercises the power on the advice of the departmental minister the Home Secretary It appears that the decision is the Home Secretary’s and the judicial review challenges have been made towards the Home Secretary’s decision. Their take on the Indian position A worrying trend is respect of the President’s power of pardon is the growing tendency of successive Presidents to disregard the advice of the Council of Ministers in the exercise of this power. Former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam inherited 12 pending mercy petitions from his predecessor which grew to 20 in his tenure . Despite recommendations for rejection of the same by the Home Ministry, he rejected only 1 petition in his 5 yr tenure – that of Dhanonjoy Chatterjee whose mercy petition had already been rejected by two former Presidents, Shankar Dayal Sharma and K.R. Narayan. The Supreme Court has held in Maru Ram and Kehar Singh that the power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is to be exercised by the Central and the State Governments and not by the President or Governor on their own. A move by successive Presidents to act on their own jeopardizes the Constitutional scheme and the Court may soon be called upon to decide whether such action furnishes an additional ground for judicial review. Such a contention was already raised in Satpal v State of Haryana which the Court rejected on evidentiary grounds without going into the question as to whether it would be a pardon could be judicially reviewed on this ground. So it seems that the Indian Legal Service considers it worrying that the Indian President is not following the advice of the Cabinet, and worry that soon the situation may call for a judicial review. They are also of the opinion in the UK the Queen acts with the Home Secretary’s advice. I checked the Canadian position to see what the practice was: The Governor General or the Governor in Council grants clemency upon recommendation from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or at least one other minister [Note: The Governor in Council is basically the Cabinet.] I cannot find the Australian position on the Royal Pardon. From what we can see, the Head of State’s prerogative for Pardon is conditional on the advice of the Cabinet. In Malaysia, Singapore and the UK, the Head of State generally follows the advice of the Cabinet, while in India the Head of State has begun to stray from the trend. It appears that recent Presidents have been bucking the precedent set by their predecessors. So far there have been no judicial reviews on the matter of if the Indian President is bound to act according to the advice of the Cabinet. There appears to be no similar provision to our Article 21 in the Indian Constitution. This must mean that the drafters of the Malaysian Constitution felt it was important enough of an English constitutional practice to place it in their new Constitution, which our own Constitution then adopted. It appears to me that the practice amongst our Commonwealth brethren is similar to ours. The Head of State take advice from the Cabinet or a member of the Cabinet; this advice is more like an instruction. While the Pardon comes from the font of the Head of State, the decision lies with the Cabinet or particular Minister. So while it may appear rather surprising or dubious from the simple reading of the Constitution, the practice has been that the Head of State acts on the advice of the Cabinet/Minister. The practice was written into our Constitution in Article 21. “Advice” is more than just a considered opinion; it is followed. The probable reason is that the Head of State in a Westminster style government is generally not supposed to make any decisions, but merely act as the “dignified” bit of the constitution, while the Government (Cabinet) is the “efficient” bit of the constitution [See: Walter Bagehot, In Defense of the English Constitution]. It’s up to the individual to come to their own conclusions on whether this practice is a fair one. While the Presidency in Singapore is elected, the ideas was a “economic caretaker” President, not a political active one. It was not an adoption of the American Presidential model, but a modification of the Westminster model. The President in Singapore’s case is a reactive and not a proactive one. The One About Ridiculous Work Titles Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:07:29 +0000 1st Ever YOG Rebirth Formula for Dividing Matrimonial Assets The Courts have come up with a formula (see AJR v AJS [2010] SGHC 199) Taken from Singapore Law Watch [Note: This is just a guide] The High Court set out a methodology which it used as a rough check on its exercise of discretion in the division of matrimonial assets. Parties to a marriage may make direct financial contributions to the marriage in different ways, some of which are totally unrelated to the acquisition or maintenance of any identifiable matrimonial asset, eg food, education etc (“direct unattributable financial contributions”) whilst others are traceable to matrimonial assets (“direct attributable financial contributions”). The methodology set out at [26] – [38] of the judgment consists of eight steps. It takes into account the parties’ direct attributable and unattributable financial contributions to the marriage as well as their indirect contributions to the marriage. Step 1: The notional total net value of the matrimonial assets to be distributed will be ascertained (“S$A”). This consists of the total net value of the matrimonial assets to be distributed (“S$m”) plus the value of any matrimonial asset proved to have been unfairly or unjustly dissipated by a party as well as the value of any matrimonial asset expended by either party for a personal investment in which the other party cannot reasonably have expected to participate in. S$m is the total value, as at the date on which judgment is given on the share of the matrimonial assets to be awarded to each party, of all matrimonial assets which existed on the date of interim judgment, less any outstanding liabilities (eg tax liabilities) which were incurred by either or both parties before the date of interim judgment. If any asset has been sold or liquidated after the date of interim judgment, the net proceeds of sale or liquidation will be used to represent the value of that asset in the calculation of S$m. Step 2: The total contributions of both parties to the marriage will be apportioned into the percentage total direct contributions of both parties to the marriage (B%) and the percentage total indirect contributions of both parties to the marriage (C%). B% and C% together add up to 100%, being the total direct and indirect contributions of both parties towards the marriage partnership. The ratio of B% to C% depends on the facts of the case and factors such as the length of marriage, number of children in the family, existence of a third party carer, extent of giving of assistance or support to the other party and total amount of time and effort that both parties had spent looking after the welfare of the family may affect the relative weightage or importance of the total direct contribution as against the total indirect contribution of both parties. The direct contribution of each party to the marriage will be considered separately from the indirect contribution of each party to the marriage at Steps 3 and 4 respectively. Step 3: The husband’s share of the total direct contribution to the marriage (D%) and the wife’s share of the total direct contribution to the marriage (E%) will be determined. In determining a party’s direct contribution, unless disputed, it will be assumed that the party has applied all matrimonial assets (as defined in s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)) that he or she has received in the course of the marriage to the welfare of the family. This includes that party’s earned salary, other monetary emoluments and other income from business (including stock options earned) and the amount he or she has accumulated in his or her CPF account. D% and E% together should be 100%, representing the total direct contribution of both parties towards the marriage partnership. D% and E% will be multiplied by B% separately to obtain DB% and EB% as the percentage of matrimonial assets which is to be awarded to the husband and wife respectively, arising from his or her direct contribution to the family. Step 4: The husband’s share of the total indirect contribution to the marriage (F%) and the wife’s share of the total indirect contribution to the marriage (G%) will be determined on the facts of the case. F% and G% together should be 100%, representing the total indirect contribution of both parties towards the marriage partnership. F% and G% will be multiplied by C% respectively to obtain FC% and GC% as the percentage of matrimonial assets which is to be awarded to the husband and wife respectively, arising from his/her indirect contribution to the family. Step 5: The notional total value of matrimonial assets to be distributed to the husband is the sum of the total percentage of matrimonial assets for distribution which is to be awarded to him arising from both his direct and indirect contributions to the family (DB% + FC%) multiplied by the notional total value of all the matrimonial assets available for distribution (S$A). Step 6: The notional total value of matrimonial assets to be distributed to the wife is the sum of the total percentage of matrimonial assets for distribution which is to be awarded to her arising from both her direct and indirect contributions to the family (EB% + GC%) multiplied by the notional total value of all the matrimonial assets available for distribution (S$A). Step 7: The total value of moneys or assets proved to have been unjustly dissipated from the pool of matrimonial assets by one party or expended by that party for the acquisition of personal investment(s) in circumstances in which both parties did not intend the other party to participate in such investment(s) will be deducted from the notional total value of matrimonial assets to be distributed to that party. Assuming the husband has removed S$H worth of assets from the pool of matrimonial assets, the actual value of matrimonial assets which will be distributed to him will thus be [S$A (DB% + FC%) – S$H]. If the wife has removed S$J worth of assets from the pool of matrimonial assets, the actual value of matrimonial assets which will be distributed to her will thus be [S$A (EB% + GC%) – S$J]. Step 8: The final ratio of the value of the matrimonial assets to be received by the husband and the value of matrimonial assets to be received by the wife can be calculated as [S$A (DB% + FC%) – S$H]: [S$A (EB% + GC%) – S$J]. This constant ratio may be applied to the total pool of matrimonial assets actually valued at the total net amount of S$m or to the net value of each and every matrimonial asset if the matrimonial assets are to be distributed individually. Applying the methodology to the facts of this case, the High Court found that it supported a division of the matrimonial assets in the ratio 20%:80% in favour of the wife, which ratio the High Court had arrived at, independently of the methodology, in its application of a broad brush approach to determining what it felt would be a just and equitable distribution of the matrimonial assets in the present case. The High Court emphasised that the methodology is no more than a useful guide and is not a substitute for the judicial approach to the division of matrimonial assets as set out in NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743. The High Court also ordered that the husband pay the wife a sum of S$2,375 per month for the maintenance of the three young children of the marriage. Additionally, 50% of any lump sum expenditure incurred for the well-being of the children on enrichment classes, hospitalisation charges beyond that covered by medical insurance and visits to an orthodontist was to be paid by the husband to the wife on a reimbursement basis. Any expenditure on a driver, children’s toys, pets, enrichment books (excluding books required as part of the children’s school curriculum) and holidays would not be shared but would be borne by the party who chooses to incur such expenditure. At AJR v AJS [2010] SGHC 199 at [22] – [38], [62]. To view the judgment, click here>. My Simple Example: Step 1: You own a HDB flat worth $540,000. There are two joint accounts with combined sums of $120,000. There was also an investment (funds) worth about $55,000. This is S$m (total net value of matrimonial assets to be distributed). Let us assume that the husband has dissipated matrimonial asset unfairly or unjustly when he gambled it away at the IRs ($60,000) . So S$A (Notional net value) = $715,000 (S$m) – $60,000 = $655,000 Step 2: [Entirely dependent on Situation] Let’s say Direct Contributions (B%) make up 60% and Indirect Contributions (C%) 40% Step 3: [Direct Contributions] Husband’s Share of the Total Direct Contributions (D%): 65%, Wife’s Share of the Total Direct Contributions (E%): 35% So, DB% = 39% and EB%= 21% Step 4: [Indirect Contributions] Husband’s Share of the Total Indirect Contributions (F%): 20%, Wife’s Share of the Total Indirect Contributions (G%): 80% So, FC% = 8% and GC% = 32% Step 5: Husband’s Share of S$A: DB% + FC% = 47% Step 6: Wife’s Share of S$A: EB% + GC% = 53% Step 7: Husband’s dissipation that was unfair or unjust (S$H): $60,000, Wife’s dissipation that was unfair or unjust (S$J): $0 Husband’s Actual Value: (47% x $655,000) – $60,000 = $247,850 Wife’s Actual Value: (53% x $655,000) – 0 = $347,150 Step 8: Husband to Wife’s Ratio: 247,850: 347,150 = 1: 1.4 So the Husband should get $297,916.66, and the Wife $417,083.33. The $0.01 gets eaten by the Math Monster. P.S.: This does not include maintenance or other costs that may be tacked on to either spouse. Hope this helps someone. Public Service Announcement: Beware of Timeshare Scams Hi folks. Thought I’d comment on this seeing as how I have had several encounters with people who were scammed by timeshares. This guide can also work for those who bought packages from beauty or spa companies. First, not all timeshares are scams, but there are a lot out there that are on the shadier side. I’ve been to a few just to get an idea. Second, this is merely my opinion, and it may not be a perfect one. The Law Covering You Consumers are covered by the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act Cap.52A (Singapore Statutes) [You can obtain a hardcopy at Jurong Regional , Tampines Regional or Lee Kong Chian Reference Libraries under the Reference section, especially if you want to see the regulations] The Second Schedule of the Act lists out many practices that are deemed unfair, but there can be other practices beyond those listed. Section 4 of the Act states: It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in relation to a consumer transaction — (a) to do or say anything, or omit to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) to make a false claim; (c) to take advantage of a consumer if the supplier knows or ought reasonably to know that the consumer — (i) is not in a position to protect his own interests; or (ii) is not reasonably able to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the transaction or any matter related to the transaction; Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Cancellation of Contracts) Regulations 2009 Reg. 4: (1)   A regulated contract may not be enforced against the consumer at any time earlier than 5 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays) after — (a)  the day on which the regulated contract is entered into; or (b)  if the consumer information notice has not been brought to the attention of the consumer before or at the time when the regulated contract is entered into, the day on which the consumer information notice is subsequently brought to the attention of the consumer. (6)   A consumer information notice shall inform the consumer of his right to cancel the contract under these Regulations and in particular shall contain the information specified in the First Schedule [ Ed: of the Regulation no the Act]. This means you have 5 days from receiving notice to cancel. If you cancel within those 5 days the contract is unenforceable.  I am not clear what it means to “bring to the attention of the consumer” the “consumer information notice.” Making you initial the notice without really explaining may or may not count as notice. The Notice of Cancellation as laid out in the Regulation: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) (CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS Supplier: (Insert name of supplier) Reference: (Insert supplier’s reference number, code or other details to enable the transaction to be identified.) I hereby give notice that I wish to cancel my contract referred to above under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Cancellation of Contracts) Regulations. Signature: Date: Name: Address: Telephone No.(optional): Fax (optional): E-mail (optional): Before Going to Court You might want to consider going to the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) before going to the courts. I know CASE sometimes gets a bad rep, but remember CASE is not a government organisation even though it is in the news a lot. So be patient with them. You can also consider going to a legal clinic for legal advice: Law Society has a clinic 4 times a week (M to Th); they are not a government department so be nice You can also ask your nearest CC. They sometimes have legal clinics as well, but usually once a month. If you want to go to court make sure you have all your documents in order, especially the contract that you signed. The Courts Going to court costs money, so be prepared to pay Small Claims Tribunal Best place to go if you don’t want to engage lawyers Court fees are lower However the max. amount you can claim is $10,000 (which should be sufficient in most cases), $20,000 where both parties agree to the dispute The filing process is the simplest and most rules of court are easy All the information you need can be found on the website. Magistrates’ and District Court Magistrates’ Court Claims Limit is $60,000, District Court Claims Limit is $250,000 It is far more complicated process, and even inexperienced lawyers can get it wrong Engaging a lawyer is not necessary, but is almost essential to getting it right You will have to file the various documents yourself, if you don’t have a lawyer, and there are no standard forms. If the SCT or MC or DC judgment is appealed against, it will almost certainly mean going to the High Court. That will cost even more time and money, and a lawyer will become almost a necessity (unless you have a lot of time on your hands to learn court procedure). If you don’t have money to get a lawyer you can try the Legal Aid Bureau (Tel: 1800-325-1424), but there are requirement: you have to be a Singapore Citizen or a Singapore Permanent Resident and is present in Singapore; you have to satisfy the “Means Test” [Ed: click the link to find a Means Test]. Your disposable income, that is, your income for the past 12 months before the date of application for legal aid and after deducting prescribed allowances, must not exceed $10,000/-, and your disposable capital must not exceed $10,000/-; and there must be merits in your case (the ”Merits Test”) If you do not satisfy the Means Test but are facing hardship, the Director of Legal Aid may extend legal aid to you (subject to the requirements of the Merits Test) if: You satisfy certain statutory provisions; and It appears to him in his absolute discretion to be reasonable to do so to relieve hardship. Some things to Note Just say “No” to timeshare offers. While there are many legitimate timeshare companies who can provide us with discounted holidays, there are many more shady companies out there willing to exploit our greed for cheap holidays. Why go through all the headache to save a couple of bucks. These “investments” are not cheap at all, and even if they are legitimate, you may not use their services much in the end. Being tied to a long term contract that sounds good now, may not be so good 15 years down the road when your situation has changed (e.g. gotten richer, kids all grown up, too ill to travel, etc). Also, law firms do not solicit for business. There have been so-called “law firm agencies” that claim to represent law firms. They are not representatives of any law firm. Approach them with caution. Find your own lawyers instead. If in doubt, call the Law Society to double check (Tel: 6538 2500). I hope this guide has been useful. It’s just what I know and is not comprehensive. Hope it helps those who need it. Some interesting Biblical Wisdom Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 1“It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers’” – Matthew 21: 12-13 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: “‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” – Mark 11: 15-17 Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” – Luke 19: 45-46 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” – John 2: 13-16 [Click on the link, and you'll understand why I posted this] Yong Vui Kong v PP [2010] SGCA 20 For those interested in the full judgment. Regarding no Constitutional Challenge: 122    Finally, we would reiterate that, in the light of our constitutional history since Singapore became an independent sovereign republic on 9 August 1965, there is no room for the argument that MDP legislation is unconstitutional because it is not “law” for the purposes of Art 9(1). In our view, whether or not our existing MDP legislation should have been enacted and/or whether such legislation should be modified or repealed are policy issues that are for Parliament to determine in the exercise of its legislative powers under the Singapore Constitution. It is for Parliament, and not the courts, to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of punishment for serious criminal offences. In view of the decisive rejection of a constitutional prohibition against inhuman punishment in the evolution of the Singapore Constitution (see [61]–[72] above), any changes in CIL and any foreign constitutional or judicial developments in relation to the MDP as an inhuman punishment will have no effect on the scope of Art 9(1). If any change in relation to the MDP (or the death penalty generally) is to be effected, that has to be done by Parliament and not by the courts under the guise of constitutional interpretation. I think the court meant that there should be no more challenges with regards to the MDP being unconstitutional due to it being inhumane. Having read the judgment, I do think Mr Ravi made a good case, but knowing our judicial attitude to activist Constitutional rulings, it was not going to fly. Using the Mithu case (India) was good since the Indian Constitution is the grandparent of ours. Also many of the cases were older than the Nguyen case, so I did not think the court would take them into account [34] I personally am no fan of the mandatory death penalty. I think there should be a death penalty, but the court should be allowed to decide if the person deserves the penalty or not. Funny I guess this is what happens if it’s the other way around. The Internet: Perfectly suited for Singaporean Culture I was reading this, and I thought that Singaporeans love to complain a lot. I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it again, there are good complaints and bad complaints. I, myself, am guilty of bad complaints, especially with Queensway Shopping Centre’s McDonald’s Delivery. I have tried to offer constructive suggestions after the fact, but at the time of complaint I usually am so mad that I just yell at them for being stupid. Same goes for Singapore Post, who keep disappointing me. It’s gotten so bad with McDelivery, that I now just drive out to get my McDonald’s fix. The upside is that I have eaten less McDonald’s. Now I just go down to the local food stores to get my meals. Or I try out new delivery services, although not as often. I believe the good thing about the internet and particularly about blogs is that it forces companies to react. I personally don’t like to blog about complaints and deal with them with the managerial staff of that company. I will say the McDonald’s managerial staff in their HQ, as well as their call center staff, are well trained and do put the customer first. It is unfortunate that it does not translate beyond the central HQ staff. Another good thing is that it makes others aware of the problems that the exist in various service providers. And has repercussions on the reputation of that company. It also means that I am better informed when it comes to choosing some service or other.  It keeps me informed and service providers on their toes. The downside is that there can be many complaints that are hard to monitor, and the thing is that Singaporean’s can complain about even very tiny things or sometimes ridiculous things. Like that whole OCBC Birthday Cake incident. It’s an advertisement; a mere puff. I’m actually impressed that the manager decided to get a cake (better than dealing with a bitchy customer I suppose). All in all though, I believe that blogging has allowed Singaporeans to speak out about bad service where previously they would have just fumed in anger. The lack of face to face contact makes one bolder, and so more likely to vent about the poor service or policy. However, there can be a little too much complaining and it can backfire on us, when the companies just stop caring because there are too many complaints to track and not enough time to solve them all. So please use the internet to complain sparingly. For the big misses, and feedback the small lapses through the company’s complaints channels. I just don’t get it I just don’t understand why you would block an ambulance. I know the paramedic was rude when he yelled at the taxi driver, but I suppose if I had to rush to the hospital I would be rude too. And I still don’t get why the car behind did not also reverse. — Jail term upheld for blocking ambulance[2010] 01 May_ST Title:    Jail term upheld for blocking ambulance Source:    Straits Times Author:    Khushwant Singh Legal News Archive THE High Court, signalling that obstructing an ambulance crew out on a job was unacceptable behaviour, upheld a taxi driver’s jail term for the offence yesterday. Tan Teck San, 46, will thus still be imprisoned, as was decided by a lower court, although his jail time was halved to a week. Justice Lee Seiu Kin, noting yesterday that some motorists fail to give way to ambulances despite their shrieking sirens and flashing beacons, said such selfish behaviour could have serious consequences in emergencies and will not be tolerated. But in this particular case, a week in jail would be punishment enough for Tan, he added. The cabby had pleaded guilty in February to refusing to move his taxi, which had been parked so near the back of an ambulance that its doors could not be opened fully for a patient on a stretcher to be loaded into it. It was about noon on Feb 20 last year when the Raffles Medical Centre in Marina Square called for a Singapore Civil Defence Force ambulance to send a breathless patient to hospital. A security officer directed the emergency vehicle to park along the driveway of the shopping mall. Its crew then went into the building. When they returned with the patient on a stretcher, they found Tan’s Mercedes-Benz taxi parked 0.5m away, making it impossible for the doors of the ambulance to open fully. The ambulance crew asked Tan to reverse his taxi, but he told them to move the ambulance instead. Defence counsel Joseph Tan Chin Aik argued during his client’s appeal against the jail term yesterday that imprisonment was unnecessarily harsh, because the cabby was unable to reverse as another car was then parked behind his taxi. Tan also grew ‘hotheaded’ because an ambulance crew member half his age had shouted at him, the defence lawyer said. A fine would be more appropriate, given Tan’s unblemished record as a taxi driver, he pointed out. Justice Lee, unconvinced, said any decent person would help an ambulance crew in an emergency. By asking that the ambulance move forward for the patient to be carried in, ‘he had shown total disregard by insisting that the ambulance staff waste valuable time that they could devote to the patient’, said Justice Lee. ‘Didn’t he realise that it could be a life-threatening situation?’ I do not understand this… Do you? I cannot understand this diagram at all. And it seems neither can the US military, yet they still use it. Good thing when I was in NS power point presentations were not yet a must. More WoW Vidz that Tickle Me Unless you play World of Warcraft, this will make no sense to you. Anybody Miss Mangletooth My gf would not get this, but having spent a good part of my time in the Barrens as a Tauren Warrior I love this a lot Boom De Yada for WoW I love the video… Boom De Yada… Koizumi as Anime?! WTF?!! This is too funny not to share. I look forward to more subbed episodes. Something Strange You know I was looking at the most recent UNDP Human Development Index, and something caught my eye. In terms of percentage of population that was made up of immigrants it was 31.8% in 1960 and 35% in 2005. I guess all those immigrants in 1960 became citizens in 1963. For those who’d like to know our rank, it’s #23 out of 187. That puts us on the Very High Human Development scale. In terms of richest 10% to poorest 10%, I think we are 2nd highest amongst the Very High Human Development group with HK just ahead by 0.1. Then again there is missing data from certain oil rich countries like Brunei, Kuwait and UAE, so who knows. It seems countries based on the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism in the top tier group have larger gaps between the top 10% and bottom 10%. Japan has the lowest at 4.5, but that could be due to almost 20 years of recession. Strange Weather we’re having I find it funny that when the PAP had a member who was not very sure he wanted to be part of the party when he joined, and then did not participate at all, the entire Singapore blogdom seemed aflame with how the PAP does not select its members well. On the other hand, when the Reform Party’s Central Executive Committee member has to step down because he is wanted on charges in the US for aiding and abetting terrorists (freedom fighters, po-tay-to, po-tah-to), all you get is a tiny peep. Or when the PKMS decides to implode, again there is not much criticism on the party. Instead its all about how the incident is hurting the Opposition. Not about the party’s choice of members. If I were an outside observer, I would think that Singaporeans are rather indulgent of opposition parties and willing to forgive all sorts of indiscretions (including nude pictures with his maid), but the minute PAP recruits someone who isn’t sure if the party is his cup of tea it is a cardinal sin. So if the opposition were to actually win an election, we could potentially have terrorist sympathisers, perverts and what not alongside honest and good men. NB: I am not saying all opposition politicians are bad men, but the fact that the good and the bad mix together is not a very heartening prospect should the opposition ever become the government. Next Dean of NUS Law? As you know there are now two shortlisted candidates for Dean of NUS Law school. On one side we have Professor Michael Hor (who taught me Criminal Law in Year One) and on the other side we have Professor John Phillips from King’s College London. Personally I’m hoping for Professor Hor to succeed Dean Tan Cheng Han. I suppose I’m plumping for a know entity rather than an unknown outsider. That might make me close minded, but I feel a foreigner might have a hard time negotiating the Byzantine politics of the NUS system. Add the potentially highly politicised, but under-utilised role of the legal fraternity here (uniquely Singapore), and a foreign Dean might feel a little out of place for a couple of years. Valuable years that may cost NUS its high ground against its local competitor, SMU. Plus we’ve done just fine without a foreign Dean since 1968. All the foreign Deans that we have had, outside of founding Dean Sheridan, stayed for about a year or 2 before leaving. It was not until Thio Su Mien (yes of recent AWARE fame), who took over in 1968, did we have a Dean who remained for a much longer time than 2 years. Who knows? Maybe I am wrong to pick the familiar over the foreign, especially since I have not had an opportunity to meet Professor Phillips, other than a quick glance before he entered the room for his interview today. I am sure those on the search committee will carefully weigh all pros and cons, but I think I’ll bet on Professor Hor. Disney’s Secret Club Wow. I did not know that Disney had a Club 33 that is so exclusive. It has a 14 year wait list for membership. It’s located on the second floor of the Blue Bayou in Disneyland Original. You know… the Restaurant by the Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe I should express interest now. I should be able to afford membership in 14 years… Nerd Venn Diagram This is too funny, but helps clear up the whole confusion between nerd, geek, dork and dweeb. I sure as hell hope I am a Geek. D&D Drinks?! OMG! My inner geek is going off. Jones Soda is selling D&D themed sodas. I wonder if they will ship to Singapore. Potion of Healing, Sneak Attack, Bigin’s Crushing Thirst Destroyer, Dwarven Draught,  Eldritch Blast and Illithid Brain Juice. YUMMY! What an idiot. From a lapsed Catholic to a converted atheist: don’t be one of those self-righteous pricks. Dear TJC student, It’s just a “God bless.” Give it a rest. People are entitled to their religious beliefs. He/She did not give a long speech about religion nor prayed. I think the person just meant well to the incoming Council. I don’t get what the big deal was. It probably just slipped because this person is religious and to him/her it’s what is said to mean good will. I hate fundamentalists of all stripes, and my advice to you is to temper your righteous rage with some tolerance. You don’t win people over by being a self-righteous prick, you win them over by being tolerant without compromising your values. If that person were to wish you “god bless,”  you should wish them “good luck” in reply. Or even “may the force be with you” or “live long and prosper” depending on which geek you are (and I am sure TJC students are geeks). So once again, breathe and let it go. There are bigger battles to fight. Sincerely, PMG Belligerent and Self-Righteous The Online Citizen seems to have pissed off NMP Viswa Sadasivans for taking a private speech and turning it into a piece that was belligerent and self-righteous. I always knew they were engaged in some kind of spin, but credit is given for publishing the letter criticizing them. Although their defense of being unbiased seems a little like the ST’s claims of being the best news source in Singapore… Hollow. Change locks also must fight? Don’t get me wrong, I think there needs to be a credible opposition, but if they keep fighting amongst themselves, there never can be one. I don’t think the PAP really needs to be “fixing” the opposition. They seem quite ready to “fix” themselves. WTH?!?! And during the month of Ramadan. I thought this period was for reflection and to avoid all the negative things in life. I’m not a Muslim, but that’s what I gather from my Muslim friends. From Wikipedia:It is the Islamic month of fasting, in which participating Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, smoking, and indulging in anything that is in excess or ill-natured; from dawn until sunset. Fasting is meant to teach the Muslim patience, modesty and spirituality. Ramaḍān is a time for Muslims to fast for the sake of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and to offer more prayer than usual. During Ramaḍān, Muslims ask forgiveness for past sins, pray for guidance and help in refraining from everyday evils, and try to purify themselves through self-restraint and good deeds. To be honest this is such a terrible move by a constituent party of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA). I can’t seem to find a SDA website, but the Singapore People’s Party website has said nothing on this matter as of 8.35am. To be fair though, it is before office hours, and I bet no one was informed of this until they heard it on the radio, TV or newspaper. Guess PM Lee can sleep a little better at night knowing that some Opposition Parties are busy “fixing” themselves at night. Singaporeans are unbelievable Stop whining. You got to see a free NDP show. You got a free goodies bag. You still want to complain you did not get the colour you want?!? Spoil your mood?!?! WTF?!?! Unbelievable… Dali & Disney Who would’ve thought I used to fly United This is a real funny video about United’s lousy customer service. I thought their air crew was ok, but I guess their ground crew sucks monkey balls. Monkey Alcoholics This is so strange indeed!