ICIJ's Offshore Files: The Singapore Link?

In 2010, the US Diplomatic Cable leaks caught the public's attention in a big way with the global media going on a frenzy of reporting about all the 'juicy' information emerging from leaked US Embassy cables. 

I just glanced through the website of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and it didn't take me long to realise that the information released by them on 3rd April 2013 about the network of global offshore money is potentially far more explosive that the Diplomatic Cable leaks.  ICIJ claims that its director Gerard Ryle managed to obtain a hard drive containing 2.5 million files of corporate data that points to a web of hidden financial interests alluding to a possibility of tax evasion and money laundering.  Packed with information about 120,000 offshore companies and 130,000 individuals worldwide, this hard drive and the investigative story emerging out of it is going to adversely affect many reputations (at the very least).  The story is slowly emerging as ICIJ releases information gradually.  It has been the result of a 15 month research project representing a global collaboration of 86 journalists from 46 countries.

What got me interested in the story was an email from the Center for Public Integrity (whose newsletters I subscribe to).  I clicked through to the website of the ICIJ and found this story: http://www.icij.org/offshore/how-icijs-project-team-analyzed-offshore-files
This line caught my attention:  "Analysis by ICIJ’s data experts showed that the data originated in 10 offshore jurisdictions, including the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and Singapore."

I looked through the site for information involving Singapore and found these two stories:
"Deutsche Bank Helped Customers maintain hundreds of offshore entities"
http://www.icij.org/offshore/deutsche-bank-helped-customers-maintain-hundreds-offshore-entities
and
"Ferdinand Marcos' daughter tied to Offshore Trust in the Caribbean"
http://www.icij.org/offshore/ferdinand-marcos-daughter-tied-offshore-trust-caribbean

The story on Deutsche Bank alleges that more than 100 customer consultants at Deutsche Bank Singapore helped to create or manage 309 offshore entities for its clients.  Germans attempting to move their funds in Swiss Bank accounts to Singapore or to other tax havens through Singapore is not entirely news.  In October 2012, the German and Singapore governments agreed on a deal to tackle this problem.  The Singapore government agreed to designate tax crimes as "predicate offences" for money laundering.  As reported by the Financial Times:  "Under the deal between Singapore and Germany, the two counties could exchange information for the enforcement of domestic tax laws “of the requesting country”, expanding this to all types of tax, not only taxes on income and on capital. Nor will the exchange depend on the taxpayer being resident in either country."

Interestingly enough, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has just published on 28 March 2013 a Response to the Feedback Received on the Consultation Paper to designate Tax Crimes as Money Laundering Predicate Offences.  The target date for implementation is 1 July 2013.  The ICIJ report on offshore money implicating Singapore as one of the destinations has come at just about the right time.  It will be interesting to see how banks and financial institutions are taken to task by our authorities. 

Apart from the German story, the story about Ferdinand Marcos' daughter throws up a Singapore link.  Imee Marcos is allegedly one of the beneficiaries of Sintra Trust, formed in the British Virgin Islands in 2002.  She is also allegedly a financial adviser to Sintra Trust.  One document found apparantly shows a United Overseas Bank account.  The regulatory authorities in Philippines have indicated interest in the revelations and there could be explosive consequences for Imee Marcos' political career. (As a lawmaker, she is duty bound to disclose her financial interests.  As the daughter of the former dictator, there will be much speculation as to whether the funds are part of her father's corrupt gains.)

Singapore readers will find the following extract from the ICIJ article to be of particular interest:

The Sintra Trust was created in June 2002 with the help of a Singapore-based offshore services firm called Portcullis TrustNet.


The documents indicate that in her role of financial advisor, Imee Marcos had powers to direct the investment of trust assets held by banks and other financial institutions.

The so-called “settlor,” “trust protector,” and “master client” listed in the documents is Mark Chua, a Singapore-based businessman said to be Imee’s new boyfriend. The settlor refers to the person who creates the trust by transferring a certain asset that he or she owns to the trustee, who then assumes legal ownership of the assets on behalf of the beneficiaries.

Chua has not replied to PCIJ’s questions on his role in Sintra Trust.

In June 2005, Imee was named investment adviser of the Sintra Trust, according to a document uncovered by ICIJ. As investment adviser, she can direct any financial institution in the purchase, sale, liquidation and investment of the trust assets. Chua also became an investment advisor for the trust in 2006.

Although the Sintra Trust is located in the British Virgin Islands, another PCGG official – the commission tasked with recovering the Marcoses’ assets – said he does not find it surprising that its servicing company, Portcullis TrustNet, is based in Singapore, which has one of the toughest financial secrecy regulations in the world. It ranked No. 6 in the 2011 Financial Secrecy Index of the Tax Justice Network, a London-based group that campaigns against tax havens.

“We’ve had a hard time getting cooperation from Singapore in our requests for international mutual assistance on criminal matters,” said the PCGG official, who asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of his work for the agency.

http://www.icij.org/offshore/ferdinand-marcos-daughter-tied-offshore-trust-caribbean(PCGG stands for the 'Presidential Commission on Good Government' and PCIJ stands for the 'Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism')

The following update is posted on the website of Portcullis TrustNet:

"Portcullis TrustNet Group is aware of media reports with information on our Group. We take a serious view of unauthorised disclosure of any confidential information. We are looking into the matter. Meanwhile, controls and safeguards are in place to protect client confidentiality. We are confident that our business activities and client services are legitimate and conducted in compliance with laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate."

  The Philippine government has, in the meantime, commenced a probe into the Sintra Trust.  http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/04/06/927491/pcgg-forms-probe-team-offshore-trust-funds   As ICIJ releases more details over the next few days and weeks, thinks could get pretty nasty for some big names in the world.  In the meantime, it would be interesting to see how much of these funds have moved through Singapore without our detection.  I am sure that MAS will now turn on the heat.  A statement from our authorities on this developing story would be useful. 
UPDATE: 
As I search around further within the ICIJ website, the Singapore Link is beginning to throw up many other individuals.  The common feature is the involvement of Portcullis Trustnet.  ICIJ has done a piece on Trustnet:
http://www.icij.org/offshore/trusted-service-provider-blends-invisible-offshore-world

That US 4 billion to the IMF: Is it unconstitutional?

On 20th April 2012, the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced that Singapore will give a "bilateral loan of US$4 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as part of the broader international effort to provide the Fund with sufficient resources to tackle crisis and promote global economic and financial stability."

Let me just state at the outset that I am not going to question the wisdom of such a move. I can see the need for the global community to rally together to hold steadfast against any future economic crisis. Some would question whether this is nothing more than an exercise in futility. In fact, in the United Kingdom (where the government has pledged 10 billion pounds), several ruling party MPs have started questioning the wisdom of providing such a backup to the IMF. Peter Bone (MP from the Conservative Party) said: "We might as well put £10billion in the nearest litter bin.” There is a sense in which this move is seen as money down the drain and an exercise in futility even if it may appear to be well-intentioned.

The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls (of the opposition Labour Party) had this to say: "The IMF has a vital role to play in the global economy and should have the resources to do that job, but it should not be bailing out the eurozone when the euro area countries are not doing their own bit to help themselves." "The IMF cannot and should not become the de facto central bank of the euro area." "The IMF is being put up to step in and play the role that the European Central Bank should be playing - a strategy which cannot work and is self-defeating by highlighting the lack of a proper ECB firewall." I can see the validity in this proposition that IMF should not do ECB's job.

Meanwhile, back in Singapore, we have mundane news reports of a mere 4 billion US dollars being pledged to the IMF. I am rather curious about the status of this loan commitment from a legal standpoint. Under our Constitution, there are some restrictions on loans and guarantees provided by the government. Article 144 of the Constitution is as follows:

Article 144.
—(1) No guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government —
(a)except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs;
(b)under the authority of any law to which this paragraph applies unless the President concurs with the giving or raising of such guarantee or loan; or
(c)except under the authority of any other written law.
(2) The President, acting in his discretion, may withhold his assent to any Bill passed by Parliament providing, directly or indirectly, for the borrowing of money, the giving of any guarantee or the raising of any loan by the Government if, in the opinion of the President, the Bill is likely to draw on the reserves of the Government which were not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office.

The present issue of the loan to IMF comes under Clause 1(b). The Constitution makes reference to specific laws under which loans may be given and one such statute listed at Clause 3 is the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Cap 27). Subscription payments to the IMF and other monetary commitments to the IMF are covered by the Bretton Woods Agreement. Given this fact, the Constitution clearly prohibits at Clause 1(b) above any loan given to the IMF without the President's consent.

I wonder if the President was consulted. I wonder if he has given his consent. Given that this is one of the areas of the President's discretionary powers and given the fact that he is an Elected President, I would expect some transparency and accountability here simply in the form of an official request for the President's consent and the President's communication of such consent with reasons stated. This would ensure that the people can judge the President's record when it comes to the next Presidential Election. What decisions did he make in relation to his discretionary powers? How did he justify those decisions? Are the justifications acceptable? These are important questions and can't be brushed aside on the bare assertion that our President is like the Queen of England and that he carries out his functions behind closed doors. Our President is Elected (and not appointed or a hereditary title holder) and these are part of his discretionary powers for which he was elected.

Thus I have 2 issues with the current loan to the IMF. (1) A guarantee or a loan without the President's consent will be unlawful. (2) If the President has consented, can we have an official statement from Istana?

George Yeo: Many had "lost faith in the government"

As reported in the media, Mr George Yeo has pretty much acknowleged that last year's poor showing (relatively speaking) in the general elections, indicates that many people had lost faith in the government.

It is good to see that with the burden of the Ministerial post off his shoulders and the lack of a Parlimanetary seat, George Yeo is able to speak his mind and admit the reality on the ground. I wonder if the extent of the populuation's loss of faith has filtered through to the leadership.

I believe that the only reason why PAP did not suffer further losses in the last GE was because there were still a sizeable number that believed that change was possible from within the Party. It was clear from the Presidential Elections that many PAP voters had voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock instead of Dr Tony Tan (the preferred PAP candidate). This was undeniably the soft option for voters wishing to express their discontent. They got their PAP government at the General Elections but they had the possibility of a non-endorsed and yet ex-PAP member (and old-school grassroots savy PAP MP) as an option for President. In one sense, a vote against Tony Tan by those that voted for the PAP at the GE was a clear message of the displeasure felt even by that segment of the population that had supported the PAP.

The extent of the displeasure is not limited to the 40% that voted for the opposition in the GE. I believe that the Presidential Elections last year constituted a form of an opinion poll on the loss of faith felt by Singaporeans. Yes, the 1,372,847 Singaporeans that did not vote for Tony Tan indicated in various shades that the current government needs to get its act together. That was effectively 64.8% of the electorate.

I appreciate George Yeo's suggestion that we have to set aside political differences and work together as a nation. I believe that these are the tentative signs of us maturing as a nation. There is still too much bitterness in the conversations carried out across party lines. A political history of repression of alternative voices has led to too much suspicion and lack of a willingness to listen (applicable to the ruling party and the opposition supporters). We need to recognise that it is perfectly fine to have strong political views and it is healthy to engage in virulent debate. In the midst of all that we must not forget that we are friends, family, Singaporeans.

Where do we go now?

For the last 20 to 25 years, I have had this feeling that our country had lost its soul. I might even add that maybe we didn’t really develop a soul after independence in 1965. We had become mere digits in a giant GDP focused machine.

Many of my friends and some of my relatives have gone away to work overseas or have relocated and given up their citizenship. If you were to ask most of them what the reason for leaving was, one inevitable reason would be that our country was missing a soul. Some would talk about it in terms of the politics here. Others would lament the lack of a balanced lifestyle. Still others may speak of the lack of a creative environment.

To me, these are all interrelated reasons. Our politics has stifled our cultural environment. The ruling party’s overriding focus on economic growth at the expense of everything else has stunted our development as a nation. After all these years of independence, why are we still not a nation yet? (Mr Lee Kuan Yew asserted as much in 2009 when he insisted that we are still not a nation.)

The answer lies in the fact that for too long the PAP has relied on a top-down model of governance that has stifled the voice of the people. Whilst you are trying to lead a whole community, the voice of the people might feel like a cacophony that distracts you from your primary purpose. But, within that cacophony is a yearning for ownership. Each individual wants to have the dignity of being the creator of his own destiny. This collective yearning to be creators, and therefore co-creators of the community’s destiny, should not be shut out. But, this is what the PAP has done in all these years of governing this country.

The PAP leaders have acquired a ‘we know best’ persona and have refused to hear or accommodate dissenting voices or views. This has manifested itself in a range of ways. Letters written to the forum pages of the state media may not readily be published if they are overly critical of the government. Responses from government departments or ministers have adopted a ‘trust-us-this-is-good-for-you’ approach rather than to suggest that they would consider the complaints and look into how things could be improved. This may sound trivial. But, psychologically this is something valuable for the people. We can feel that we have expressed our frustrations and that these frustrations have not only been heard but that they may possibly be the basis on which policy decisions are made.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, too many Singaporeans have grown up with a sense of fear as to what could happen to them if they voiced their views in public. Detentions under the Internal Security Act had caused many of us to fear a government that we saw increasingly as being bent on retaining its grip on power through whatever means possible. The 1987 detentions under Operation Spectrum were pretty unconvincing in terms of the reasons supplied by the state. Roman Catholic church members, social workers and lawyers: these are hardly the kind of people that we consider to be dangerous communist insurgents. But, the government through the state media tried to sell that story to us. Some of us bought it. Many didn’t. But, amongst the many that didn’t buy into the reasons, we certainly got entangled in the state of fear that the arrests induced.

Singapore society fell silent. Social activists fell silent. The Law Society fell silent. We knew that it was not prudent to criticize the ruling party or to speak in support of opposition parties. I remember for a long period of time that any conversation critical of the PAP or its leaders had to be conducted within the privacy of our homes or if in a public place, with hushed tones so as not to attract the attention of some ISD operative. You could be in a coffee shop and the conversation could veer into politics and friends would uneasily glance over at other tables especially if there is a lone individual sipping his coffee for an endless period of time.

As a concurrent development in the 1980s, the youth of that time were displaying dissent at the ballot box. (Presumably it was the youth as LKY was pretty upset with the younger generation at that time.) At its peak the opposition managed to get 4 seats in Parliament and had reduced the PAP’s popular vote to 61%. That was in 1991. Since then the PAP has been effective through redrawing of boundaries and the extensive usage of the GRC system to effectively neuter the opposition and limit them to Hougang and Potong Pasir.

By the time we stepped into the 1990s, it was becoming clear that voicing your views against the PAP was not a prudent thing to do. In the 1990s, we moved from ISA detentions to defamation suits. In a country where the pursuit of wealth or at least economic survival is of penultimate importance, the threat of defamation suits was a powerful weapon against dissent.

But, the last five years have been different in many ways. Little by little people were voicing out their views and getting away with it (with the exception of the law extending its arm now and then to show who’s the boss). The internet gave us two things: an avenue for alternative news and an avenue for venting our frustrations. The 2011 general elections saw online criticism of the PAP reach fever pitch with some really nasty and heated comments being dished out by disgruntled individuals. For the first time in a general election we had policy issues to grumble about and the discussions were not merely about checks and balances in Parliament. (But, arguably the a sizeable percentage of voters have matured enough to realize that the best way to effect policy changes is to have an effective system of checks and balances in Parliament)

Ironically, the government’s decision to adopt a light-touch approach to the internet as well as the decision to allow the internet to be used as a campaign platform became a sword against the PAP. The opposition parties do not have the organizational strength of the PAP nor the kind of structural reach into the population through grassroots organizations. But, through the internet and the internet-savy youth, they penetrated well into the hearts and minds of a frustrated population. Alternative news could not be ignored. The mainstream media could not ignore the online chatter. The PAP leaders could not ignore the sheer anger that was being displayed by the population during the campaign period. All that led to that historic day of ministerial apologies and we felt that Goliath, whilst not slain, was made to have a good hard look at himself (even if he may find it difficult to really alter himself).

Polling day came. More than 800,000 people made their roar audible. A GRC fell. Several GRCs were close. A warning has been served.

We stand now at the threshold of a new dawn. This is liberation day all over again. Not liberation from a colonial power but liberation from the fear that had gripped our nation. Suddenly, we realize that there is nothing to fear. The mighty PAP is fallible. The present leaders are not going to come down on us with the ISA. They appear willing to let us have our say and not quash us or our views.

During the election campaign period, many volunteered their services for the opposition parties. To do this in Singapore takes tremendous courage and a sense of self-sacrifice. Many had to battle disapproval from family members or colleagues or superiors. After the elections were over, many came forward to volunteer their services. I know of many (usually younger than me) who have voiced the intention to serve on the ground with opposition parties either as members or simply as grassroots volunteers.

One thing is clear: Anyone who volunteers in this manner to serve opposition parties is not trying to gain some kind of benefit for himself. The unfortunate fact about most people who join existing grassroots organizations is that they seek some kind of benefit for themselves. I have a relative who urged me a long time ago to join the grassroots as I am bound to benefit through contacts and I could get better clients that way. When I first moved to Choa Chu Kang, a court clerk that I knew bumped into me and suggested that I join the RC in my zone (in which he was a member). His rallying cry was also about the benefits that I could get as a result of being a RC member. I know of many parents who volunteer their services to grassroots organizations in the hope that they will get preference for the primary school where they intend to send their kids. There is only one thing to say about this. It is pure selfishness and self-interest at play. There will surely be some who join purely out of a sense of service and I am not going to lump them up in this generalization.

Unlike the grassroots organizations from which the PAP draws its strength where sycophancy is often the order of the day, the volunteers that are now coming forward to help the opposition cause carry a serious message through their actions. They want change. They want to live their lives with a sense of purpose. This purpose is not in fulfilling their own narrow interests but in pursuing the greater good of Singapore. The political stranglehold that the PAP has had in our country has sucked out almost the last drop of the idealism and hope that we were born with. But now, something has changed. Something magical has happened.

People are rising up. There is a momentum created during the days of the campaign period that has not gone away. Many are carrying this flame in their hearts and surely more and more capable and passionate people will step forward to join the opposition parties. The next general elections will see the opposition fielding very strong candidates with tremendous passion. This is something the PAP is going to be lacking: passion. It already lacks this and it is failing to attract passionate individuals. Neutered unionists, technocrats and individuals climbing up the PAP-engineered meritocratic ladder are the types that the PAP can churn out. Individuals with a passion for the people are inevitably going to cross over the line and towards the opposition.

What do we do now? There is an important political milestone to be reached in our country. We have to prevent the PAP from amending the constitution whenever it deems it fit. Constitutional amendments must be done only when there is a cross-party support for such measures. To ensure this, the opposition must obtain sufficient seats in Parliament to prevent the PAP from having a 2/3 majority.

30 seats in Parliament for the opposition and the PAP’s stranglehold will be broken. That is the target.

This is achievable even by the next election. Those of us that are committed to building an active democracy must do our part. We could volunteer to assist in the grassroots activities of opposition parties. We could monitor the state media and expose any propaganda. We could continue to highlight the policy failures of the government and socio-economic issues encountered by Singaporeans. We could continue to campaign for the reform of the law and our legal system.

We want a just society. We want an equal society. We want a democratic society.

This is not too much to ask or too much to seek to accomplish. It is nothing more than what we have been pledging to do all those years in our school days. For once, the pledge can mean something. We now have a chance to cease to be hypocrites and really do what we have been pledging to do.

“We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

Change?

The 7th of May has come and gone. Many of us were harping on the message of change. For some, it was as grandiose as a defeat of the PAP and the formation of a coalition government. For others, it was about denying the PAP a 2/3 majority. But, I believe, for most it was about making a breakthrough in a GRC.

In the heat of the campaigning, it was becoming increasingly clear from all the noise-making on social media platforms such as Facebook and from all the conversations that we were having with friends and relatives that something was happening. There was a shift against the PAP. A wave of anger. This was made worse by the almost arrogant insistence by Ministers that there would be no policy shifts and the veiled and direct threats that were made to the electorate generally and to voters in Aljunied in particular.

For a while, some of us sensed that Holland-Bukit Timah might fall to SDP in addition to a victory for the Workers’ Party in Aljunied. As more and more of us raised our voice in whatever way possible, we became more and more hopeful that something exceptional was going to happen on 7th May 2011. My own rational wish on cooling off day was that WP must take Aljunied and the votes must swing against the PAP to bring their majority to 60%. On polling day, both wishes came true. But, I felt a little empty because of so many close fights and of course the hyped up expectation of a totally surprising result. The surprise didn’t materialize.

With the heat of the election battle cooling off, and after rationally analyzing the opposition performance, I must say that there has been a significant change in this election. This is the highest number of opposition MPs in post-independence Singapore. This is the lowest percentage of popular votes garnered by the PAP.

More significantly, more than 800,000 Singaporeans voted for the opposition. During the campaign period, fear was rapidly disappearing from the minds of Singaporeans. We were saying stuff on our blogs. We were tweeting bold messages. Our Facebook updates were becoming ever more daring. We were publicly discussing politics with our friends, colleagues and relatives. We were not shy or fearful of discussing the topic in public places. Fear: a powerful tool in the hands of the PAP was now disappearing from our minds. I know of friends who had voted for the PAP previously out of fear or had spoilt their votes previously for that reason, who had decided in this election to cast away that fear. (Reality check – I also know of some who did not manage to do it and at the last minute succumbed to the fear of some backlash)

Of all the things that we can say about GE 2011 (be it the quality of opposition candidates, the disciplined messaging of WP and SDP, the off-message statements of PAP candidates, the sideshow involving Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah, the unprecedented apologies of Ministers, the swelling crowds at opposition rallies, the unrestricted usage of new media and the shameless lies of the New Paper), the one undeniable thing that has stood out for me is the lifting of the fear factor from the minds of so many Singaporeans.

Change has come.

Now, we have more work to do.

http://www.facebook.com/update_security_info.php?wizard=1#!/video/video.php?v=1753951563382&comments

8:22 - The Hypocritical Oath

8.22pm, 9th August 2009 – A moment of no real significance for our nation. But, as trumpeted by the mainstream media, it was ‘the universal pledge moment’. A moment of ‘significance’ manufactured out of thin air. An insignificant point in time artificially grafted onto the nation’s collective consciousness.

10am – That would have been my preferred time. 10am – The moment that the independence of Singapore was proclaimed on the steps of the City Hall.

Wouldn’t that be more significant? Wouldn’t we at least have a greater historical sense of what we were doing when we took the pledge? Wouldn’t it be emotionally significant to those old enough to recall where they were and how they felt at the precise moment of independence?

As with the general plasticity of many things in Singapore, the 8.22pm moment was just another plastic moment. Well, it doesn’t really matter in the end what time the pledge was taken. The larger question that we should ask is how many of those that took the pledge at that appointed time meant what they said?

If you watched the parade on tv, you would have seen a short ‘preamble’ appear on the screen……. ‘say what you mean. Mean what you say.’ I really hope that the citizens of Singapore taking the pledge on that day said what they meant and meant what they said.

My challenge to the pledge takers is this. Ponder very carefully on what you pledged. You pledged…(amongst other things)....

…. to build a democratic society based on justice and equality….

How have you helped to build such a society? Do we have such a society? What can we do to live up to our pledge?

What does it mean to say that a society is democratic? Is democracy defined by the conduct of elections? If the electoral process does not involve a level playing field, does it warrant being termed as being reflective of democracy? If the ballot is cast without an informed choice, is that democratic? Is it democratic to group constituencies together thereby shielding potentially weak candidates from electoral fire? Or even to use such a system to allow candidates that may have otherwise lost their seats to nevertheless become representatives of constituencies where they do not enjoy majority support? Is that democratic?

What is the meaning of justice? What do we mean by equality? Do we have due process in all instances? Or can we be arbitrarily classified as a security threat and incarcerated indefinitely? Do we enjoy equal treatment or does political persuasion play a part in decision making by the authorities?

These are questions that we have to ask ourselves.
If you believe that we do have a democratic society based on justice and equality, good for you. Blessed are the ignorant.
If you do not believe that we have a democratic society based on justice and equality, then you have to consider what is the peaceful and constructive way to accomplish such a society. You have to do this in order to live up to the pledge.
However, if you do not believe that we have a democratic society based on justice and equality and do not think that you need to even ponder about how such a society can be accomplished, but nevertheless gleefully took the pledge, you are a hypocrite!

Celebrating National Day

He peered into the bin exploring the day’s possibilities.

At 71, Mr Lim is active enough to support himself. After all, life is a constant barter trade of drink cans for his daily bread. Like all good businessmen, he has learned the art of cost-cutting: home is now a choice of 4 void decks and the wet market thankfully offers a 20cents per entry toilet.

Staring at him from the bin was a kickapoo can; not as common as Coke or Pepsi these days. He used to enjoy it almost every day at the shipyard.

Those days are still fresh in his eyes. He watched the port speed its way to become the busiest of them all. His best friend Ramu used to joke, “we carry the whole of Singapore on our shoulders”. Ramu was a proud man. Diabetes took away one of his legs and he used to sell lottery tickets at waterloo street until two years ago. Lim heard that nobody claimed Ramu’s body. ‘What happens to unclaimed corpses at the mortuary’, he wondered.

His prolonged gaze at the kickapoo can was broken by an agitated female voice: “Seow ah!’
‘Yes, mad!’ he thought to himself.

Uniquely Singapore: Papmandering

Papmandering: 'The art/science of redrawing electoral boundaries, electoral laws and/or the constitution for the purpose of maintaining overwhelming control of Parliament through the mechanics of clearly articulated arguments in favour of an inclusive form of democracy'

We are familiar with the concept of gerrymandering. It is the process by which electoral boundaries are redrawn to produce a distinct advantage for a candidate. Gerrymandering is possible in a first-past-the-post system whereby voting districts that appear to strongly favour an incumbent can be made to swallow up adjacent voting districts that appear to support opposition candidates.

In most countries employing the first past the post system, the principle governing redistricting or redrawing of constituency boundaries is based on the idea of equal representation for voters. Absolute equality in representation is impossible to achieve. However, boundary commissions/committees attempt to find approximate equality in terms of the MP to voter ratio. Considering that the key reason for boundary changes is to take into account demographic changes either due to migration of voters between constituencies or due to voters reaching the age of majority for voting, one finds it unethical that boundary changes could be used to ensure that an incumbent obtains the right number of votes to secure an election victory.

The word gerrymander itself is a combination of Gerry and Salamander. Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusets (USA) redistricted his state in 1812 to benefit his party. In particular, a district in Essex County resembled a Salamander because of the artificial redrawing of boundaries. The editor of the Boston Gazette referred to it as ‘gerrymander’ and the name entered the English lexicon through repeated usage.

The beauty of gerrymandering is that nobody can really prove that the redistricting was a purely political exercise as opposed to the legitimate exercise of ensuring equality in voter representation. In Singapore, many observers view boundary changes cynically even though, to be fair, the voter to MP ratio has been kept reasonably proportionate. Based on current practice, district population deviation is kept to a limit of 30%.

Notable amongst electoral regions that fell prey to redistricting would be Eunos GRC. In the 1997 elections, Eunos GRC was eliminated from the map and its residents were split up into neighbouring districts. In the previous elections, Eunos was hotly contested and the PAP team beat the WP team by 45,833 votes to 41,673 votes. In the 1997 elections, it was Cheng San GRC that was hotly contested and although not quite near the close battle of Eunos GRC, the WP managed to obtain approximately 45% of the votes cast. Cheng San GRC did not feature in the 2001 elections.

I don’t propose a detailed study of boundary changes undertaken in Singapore. There are other studies on this phenomenon. What is fascinating about ‘goal post changing’ in Singapore is not gerrymandering. Obviously, it is a practice that is inevitable and at the same time impossible to prove in the first past the post systems around the world. The fascinating twist in Singapore is the use of the following devices:
a) NCMP
b) NMP
c) GRC

In my opinion, the PAP’s strategy in relation to the trend in the 1980s of increasing opposition support was to provide dissenting voices a platform in Parliament. The PAP rightly sized up the general mood of the public as one that did not seek a change in the status quo overnight. There were hardcore opposition supporters. There were the PAP loyalists. There were those who felt intimidated by the perceived lack of secrecy of the ballot and would therefore vote for the PAP. There were then the voters who occupied the middle ground. These voters have existed in the 1980s and I suspect that they continue to exist. This segment of the population can be persuaded to vote for the opposition. They see the merit of a continuation of the PAP government but have thirsted and still do thirst for a greater diversity of views and voices in Parliament. Psychologically, the ability to vent one’s frustration in the public sphere is a necessity in any society. It is a case of letting off steam.

I suspect that the PAP assessed that by providing a platform for opposition voices in Parliament without allowing these opposition members from becoming fully empowered members of the Parliament they would be able to release some of the pressure that was building up in the 1980s. The Non Constituency MP scheme was a device to permit losing opposition candidates an opportunity to speak in Parliament. By doing this, PAP could tell the people: Look. You wanted us to form the government and you wanted opposition voices in Parliament. We have changed our electoral laws to allow you to continue to vote PAP MPs into Parliament and at the same time have your wish of hearing opposition voices in Parliament.

In the same vein of airing diverse views and in order to prevent public disquiet, the PAP tinkered with Parliamentary composition by introducing the Nominated MP scheme. This time, non partisan individuals could be introduced into Parliament and they could raise the quality of the debate through their knowledge in their respective fields. The PAP would have seen that this would be a way of assuring the public that a multiplicity of views can and will be aired in Parliament. Besides, the PAP might have hoped that the NMPs would appear to be of a ‘better’ calibre than the opposition MPs thereby diminishing the need for people to vote for the opposition.

I see the current proposal of increasing the number of NCMPs to be the latest in this line of tinkering with Parliamentary composition. Given the noticeable social activism in Singapore over the last few years, the PAP must have realised that they risk the possibility of losing a few more seats to the opposition in the next elections. One pre-emptive strategy would be to assure the people that more opposition MPs will get to sit in Parliament through the NCMP scheme. Indirectly, they are telling the electorate again that you don’t have to vote in an opposition MP for your constituency. All you need to do is to continue to have your PAP MPs and as a bonus you will get an increased number of opposition MPs in Parliament. These guys can bark. But they can’t bite.

From a strategic standpoint, PAP would have calculated that the hardcore opposition supporters would continue to vote for the opposition. But the segment of the population that thirsts for a voice can be persuaded to vote for the PAP candidates as they would be assured that there will be a minimum number of opposition candidates who will end up in Parliament even though they lost.

Part of the process of Papmandering therefore involves tweaking Parliamentary composition through amendments to the electoral law as well as to the Constitution. The other part of the process is to magnify the distortion normally produced by the first past the post system. In the first past the post system, it is possible for a party to gain a disproportionately high percentage of seats in Parliament when compared to the popular vote. For instance, a party can get 65% of the popular vote and still manage 80% of the seats in Parliament. In the United Kingdom for instance, every post WWII government with a Parliamentary majority has failed to obtain more than 45% of the popular vote.

Given the lack of proportionality that is inherent in the system, layering the GRC over it helps to aggravate the disproportionality. With the introduction of the GRC system, it is possible that some MPs that may have lost their individual seats are rescued by stronger candidates in other constituencies. The practice of having a Minister head a GRC team places an apprehension in the minds of voters that if the team loses, the Minister would no longer be able to serve in his office. Weak candidates within the GRC would benefit from the presence of a Minister on their team.

Let us take the Eunos GRC example. In the 1988 elections, Eunos GRC was a 3 member ward. The votes in favour of PAP – 36,500. The votes in favour of WP – 35,221. If the 3 constituencies that were a part of the GRC were single member constituencies in that elections, it is highly likely that at least one of the PAP candidates would have lost his seat. It is likely that Francis Seow would have won a seat in his constituency. In fact, with a vote difference of 1,279 votes, I would not be surprised if 2 PAP MPs had in fact lost to the opposition in the Eunos GRC(if only the Elections Department were to release the detailed results).

The same analysis can be applied to the Eunos GRC of the 1991 elections. This time around it was composed of 4 constituencies. PAP obtained 45,833 votes as opposed to 41,673 for the WP. With a vote difference of 4,160, again it is likely that at least one of the PAP candidates would have lost the seat in a conventional single member seat.

Through the GRC system, the PAP has managed to keep some of its MPs in Parliament where they would otherwise have found it tough going in a single member constituency. The growth in the size and number of GRCs was accompanied by the disappearance of most of the single member constituencies. This is another unique form of electoral management that has ensured the PAP’s continued super-majority in Parliament.

To accomplish this feat, the PAP has utilised not only electoral boundary changes but also changes to the electoral law and the Constitution. At every step of the way, the PAP has utilised innovative arguments to substantiate the need for such changes (the need for guaranteed minority representation being one). Many of us are cynical in the way that we view the reasons. But, there are many amongst the electorate who are convinced by the stated reasons.

This process of electoral management is uniquely Singapore and uniquely PAP. It warrants being called Papmandering. Of course, the point to remember is that none of this is unlawful or illegal or unconstitutional.

The Marxist Conspiracy of 1987 - revisiting a legal footnote

Five young activists have organized a gathering at Hong Lim Park to commemorate 21st May 1987. I’m glad to see that there are still many who recall the alleged ‘Marxist Conspiracy' of that era. I was 19 at that time and watched incredulously as a parade of tales emanated from the available media outlets.

There are so many things that we could recollect in relation to those days. Where were we? How did the news unfold? The general skepticism amongst many of us. I’d like to use this occasion to commemorate the day that our judiciary stood tall in the context of the rather limited legal role that it has in the review of executive action.

Chng Suan Tse v Minister for Home Affairs (1998) SLR 132
The case involved Operation Spectrum and the primary issue was over the court’s ability to review the Executive’s decision to detain under the Internal Security Act. It proved to be a landmark decision as the Court of Appeal chose to apply an objective test in assessing the discretion of the Executive instead of applying a purely subjective test as the courts had done in the past. Prior to this case, the position of the courts was to adopt a subjective approach as in the case of Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs [1971] 2 MLJ 137.

What was the implication of the Chng Suan Tse decision? The Internal Security Act demands that the as a precondition to detention, the President be ‘satisfied’ as to certain matters. If the test was purely subjective as it was in Lee Mau Seng, there was little that a detainee could do to question the exercise of discretion. If the test was objective as propounded by the Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tse, then it was possible for the court to assess at least whether objectively the President was ‘satisfied’.

The then Chief Justice, Wee Chong Jin stated in the judgment:
“In our view, the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. If therefore the executive in exercising its discretion under an Act of Parliament has exceeded the four corners within which Parliament has decided it can exercise its discretion, such an exercise of discretion would be ultra vires the Act and a court of law must be able to hold it to be so.”

“It must be clear therefore that the boundaries of the decisionmaker’s jurisdiction as conferred by an Act of Parliament is a question solely for the courts to decide. There is also, as counsel for the appellant has pointed out, no ouster clause in respect of s 8 or 10 of the ISA. Adopting the objective test in respect of ss 8 and 10 of the ISA would also be consistent with arts 9(2) and 93 of the Constitution. Further, it is, in our view, no answer to refer to accountability to Parliament as an alternative safeguard. As Lord Diplock put it in R v IRC, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at p 644:
It is not, in my view, a sufficient answer to say that judicial review of the actions of officers or departments of central government is unnecessary because they are accountable to Parliament for the way in which they carry out their functions. They are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy, and of that Parliament is the only judge; they are responsible to a court of justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the court is the only judge


The Court went on to rule that:

"the President’s satisfaction under s 8 of the ISA and the minister’s satisfaction under s 10 of the ISA are both reviewable by a court of law as:
(1) the subjective test adopted in Karam Singh [1969] 2 MLJ 129 and its progeny can no longer be supported and the objective test is applicable upon a judicial review of the exercise of these discretions; and
(2) although a court will not question the executive’s decision as to what national security requires, the court can examine whether the executive’s decision was in fact based on national security considerations; similarly, although the court will not question whether detention was necessary for the purpose specified in s 8(1), the courts can examine whether the matters relied on by the executive fall within the scope of those specified purposes"


Of course, the story did not end there. Parliament duly amended the Internal Security Act in 1989 to nullify the effect of this case in relation to detentions under the ISA. By virtue of s.8B, the law on judicial review with regard to the ISA detentions was brought back to the position in 1971 and by virtue of s.8D the legislative change was to have effect in relation to any proceedings whether commenced before or after the amendment.

Law applicable to judicial review.
8B. —(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the law governing the judicial review of any decision made or act done in pursuance of any power conferred upon the President or the Minister by the provisions of this Act shall be the same as was applicable and declared in Singapore on the 13th day of July 1971; and no part of the law before, on or after that date of any other country in the Commonwealth relating to judicial review shall apply.
(2) There shall be no judicial review in any court of any act done or decision made by the President or the Minister under the provisions of this Act save in regard to any question relating to compliance with any procedural requirement of this Act governing such act or decision.
- Act 2/89 wef 30.1.89.

Commencement provision.8D. Sections 8A and 8B shall apply to any proceedings instituted by way of judicial review of any decision made or act done under the provisions of this Act, whether such proceedings have been instituted before or after the commencement of the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989.
- Act 2/89wef30.1.89.