Dan Tan rearrested by the Police

Less than a week after he was released as a free man when the Courts of Appeal ruled that his 2 year detention was unlawful. Dan Tan has been rearrested again on Tuesday night. The police did not give any reason but gave a statement, ‘The police are unable to provide further comments at this point as investigations are ongoing’. This is how efficient our police are when they want someone behind bars.  OK, this time the Law Minister said if Dan Tan were to be detained again, the police will set out the grounds fully and adequately this time.

Let’s look at the judgement again, and I quote the Today paper, ‘his detention was “beyond the scope of the power vested in the minister, which was to detain persons in the circumstances where activities of a sufficiently serious criminal nature threatened to or did undermine public safety, peace or good order in Singapore”.’  If it is beyond the power of the minister to arrest him, is it within the power of the police to arrest him again? I am not a legal trained person so can only ask to be enlightened.

What is he being charged now? And how long can the police detained him this time if no charges are framed against him, the normal 48 hours? Or is the police making a statement that the Courts of Appeal is wrong in its judgement to release Dan Tan? Is this now a question of law, the courts interpret it one way and the police interpret it in another way?  Shanmugam emphasized that his ministry is not challenging the court’s decision, so there is no conflict or conflict of interest. The police will do what it thinks is right and the court can decide what it thinks is lawful. If the first assessment or thinking is unlawful, would this second thinking be right and lawful?

The other big question, Dan Tan was under detention for two years, in other words ‘he was jailed for two years’ without being found guilty of a crime but alleged to be a master mind of an international football fixing syndicate.  Not enough meh? Is this fair to this man that has yet to be proven guilty but already guilty before being charged?

What happens if he is finally charged and the jail sentence is one year, would the govt owes him one year of over detention? Or if he is found not guilty, who is going to be responsible for his more than 2 years of detention?

And now he is being rearrested. What would his lawyer be saying or doing? When a person commits an act that is unlawful, the person is as good as having committed a crime. If the police detained Dan Tan for two years unlawfully, have the police committed a crime against Dan Tan or the law?

The most troubling issue will be the faith and confidence of the people over this CL/TPA.  How the police invoke this provision and how often it is ruled unlawful by the court will have serious implications on the police and the purpose of this provision.  This Dan Tan case has already cast a doubt over its use or misuse. The police must be seen to use this provision judiciously, lawfully and not because it thinks it is the right thing to do.

This case is getting very interesting. Some even questioned if the govt is under pressure to arrest Dan Tan and put him behind bars. Shanmugam had  categorically denied that this is so. ‘We don’t arrest or release people based on international pressure. We do what is right for Singapore.’ This arrest must be right for Singapore. Just make sure it is lawful and not thrown out by the courts again. Right is one thing, a personal judgement. We are a rule of law country and it must be lawful.

Paris COP21 on climate change – changing the world we lived

By Chua Chin Leng (chinadaily.com.cn)Updated: 2015-11-30 15:12
CommentsPrintMailLarge Medium Small

There are great expectations in Paris this week with the arrival of world leaders for the 21st Conference of Parties on Climate Change from 30 Nov to 11 Dec. After a 20-year run of tough negotiations, an agreement is expected to be signed during this UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Chua Chin Leng [Photo provided to chinadaily.com.cn]
Touted as the last chance to save Mother Earth from global warming due to carbon emissions, world leaders are heeding the calls from environmental scientists and experts to ink a series of measures in this conference. According to a BBC report scientists are expecting the leaders to agree to an eight-point action plan in Paris.
The plans would include limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, keeping CO2 emissions to 1,000 gigatonnes, a zero carbon society by 2050, the richer countries giving assistance to the poorer ones, protection of forests and oceans, research and a strategy to address the loss and damage due to climate change, and lastly to provide financing assistance to developing countries.
The urgency and seriousness of global warming would see leaders of more than 140 countries arriving in Paris for a summit. President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping have arrived early for a pre conference bilateral meeting to set the tone and direction for the conference and to provide the necessary leadership needed to take the agenda forward. Both countries would have a common objective to work together and lead the community of nations to overcome a dire problem facing all nations caused by global warming.
The atmosphere in Paris this time is less adversarial but more consultative and cooperative. Most of the hard negotiations have been done by the respective countries' representatives over the years and there is great hope of a historic agreement for the good of the human kind.
There are still some disagreements on the fine details, but there is a general agreement to cap the global temperature change at 2 degrees Celsius. There will be repeated calls and measures for countries to cut down their carbon emissions from fossil fuels and switching to cleaner energy sources. Financial assistance would be needed, so are technologies on renewable and clean energies. Agreements would be signed, pledges would be made by the participating countries but the difficult part would be the implementations of these commitments, the change to new and clean technologies and the supply and construction of new energy manufacturing plants and facilities.
There would still be the demands from the developing nations, particularly the island states that would face the most direct impact of higher sea level, on the developed nations for more financial assistance to meet the challenges of shrinking islands. The pledges are voluntary though some leaders are pushing for them to be legally binding. What needs to be addressed quickly is the cost of implementing the pledges to the fullest instead of just a thought of what the countries would like to do. Many of the countries would be hard pressed when cost of cutting carbon emission is prohibitive. Who is going to finance the measures to be taken?
Countries like China with their manufacturing capabilities and technologies in windmills and solar panels would play a bigger part in assisting countries in transforming their energy production to clean energy. China could showcase its knowhow and clean energy products and processes to countries to meet their pledges and commitments to cut carbon emissions. It is infrastructure development of a different kind where China is well positioned to play a big role for the island nations.
The Paris meeting will generate demands and opportunities for clean and renewable energy technologies between the users and manufacturers of such technologies. The transition to new and clean energy will revolutionize human activities and behaviors in a very major way. New industries will emerge to support the needs of countries going green and to cut carbon emissions. Lifestyle and living will not be the same again.
China's investment and development in lowering the cost of green technology could be a game changer for countries wanting to make the change to new energy sources. No amount of talks, scientific presentations and pledges will make the earth better unless the cost is addressed and reduced to an acceptable level. After Paris the talking must stop and serious work begins.
Saving the earth from climate change is an enormous task involving every country and every citizen of the world, and is a continuous process of human endeavor.
The author, Chua Chin Leng, is a political observer from Singapore.
The above is my contribution to China Daily as a featured contributor.

Changes at CPF that will affect your Medisave Savings

Below is a copy from the CPF website on Medisave Savings, Q&A. You may want to know the Basic Healthcare Sum which is the Medisave Contribution Ceiling sum.

Is there a ceiling on the Medisave balance?

 

Yes, the current Medisave Contribution Ceiling (MCC) is $48,500. The Medisave Contribution Ceiling keeps up with inflation so that Singaporeans will have sufficient savings to meet their healthcare expenses.   For members below 55 years old, any Medisave contribution in excess of MCC will be transferred to their Special Account and/or Ordinary Account (if their Special Account savings have reached the current Full CPF Retirement Sum).   For members 55 years old and above and who have not set aside Full Retirement Sum or Basic Retirement Sum (with sufficient property charge/pledge), the excess Medisave contributions will be transferred to their Retirement Account. For those who have set aside the applicable retirement sum, the excess Medisave contribution will be transferred to the Ordinary Account.   Government pensioners under the Fixed Amount on Ward Charges Scheme (FAW) do not need to have Medisave whereas pensioners under the Co-payment on Ward Charges scheme (CPW) need to contribute to Medisave for up to 30% of the current MCC.   The MCC will be renamed as the Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS) from 1 January 2016. The BHS is designed to be enough for a CPF member’s basic, subsidised healthcare needs in old age. Amounts above the BHS will be transferred to the member’s SA, RA or OA, similar to the MCC.    The BHS will be set at $49,800 on 1 January 2016 for all CPF members. The BHS will be adjusted yearly in January to keep pace with the growth in Medisave use by the elderly. The BHS will be fixed when members turn 65, and this amount will not change for the rest of their lives. Therefore, all members aged 65 and above in 2016 will have the same BHS of $49,800 for the rest of their lives.

Japan should rearm - An irresponsible and insensitive thought

‘Why Japan should re-arm’ is the title of an article in the Today paper on 1 Dec by a Brahma Chellaney, a professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi based Centre for Policy Research.  The whole argument was based on an imagined fear of China as a regional hegemon and Japan as the angel and India as the archangel of peace and stability. While India has its big dream of becoming a super power one day in the next century, there is no need to bring out the butcher of World War 2 as a messenger and guardian of peace. India may not have suffered the brutality of the Japanese Imperial Army when they invaded Asia. India might be fighting with the Japanese to rid the British colonialist, but the rest of Asia suffered gravely with 30m killed by the invading Japanese forces.

And the idea that Japan was a pacifist country by choice is a big farce. Japan was forced to be a pacifist country by the Americans when they defeated the brutal Japanese and handcuffed them in a Pacifist Constitution to prevent the Japanese from more mischief and adventurism. Pacifism is embedded in the Japanese Constitution by force. Militarism is in the blood of the Japanese. The quick passing of the revisionist policies of Abe to wage wars in the Japanese Diet is ample proof of the real Japanese and not the few hundred protestors in the streets.

Despite the pacifist Constitution, Japan has been allowed to rearm by the US as a possible force to counter the rise of China, and its armed forces is second only to China in Asia and could easily run down South East Asia once again. The militarism of the Japanese has not gone away. This is the most barbaric colonialist of the Second World War. Allowing Japan out of the bottle will destabilize Asia once again.

What has this Brahma Chellaney been smoking or drinking? Too much toddy?  The rearmament of Japan ‘would enhance its capacity to forestall the emergence of a destabilizing power imbalance in East Asia? Who started a world war in East Asia, who invaded the countries in East Asia and South East Asia? This professor must be reading history from Japanese history books. In a slip his real intent came off when he said, ‘A more confident and secure Japan would certainly serve the interests of the US, which could then depend on its close ally to take more responsibility for both its own security and regional peace. Americans increasingly seem to recognize this, with 47 per cent of respondents in the Pew survey supporting a more active role for Japan in Asian security. The Asian countries must be stupid to ask the butcher and invader of their countries to guard the peace and security of the region.

Japan would not support or encourage aggression? How silly.

PS. Does the Today paper and the Singapore govt also support this view, that Japan should rearm? Remember Sook Ching? Remember Syonan-to? Stupid people got short memory.

Dan Tan, the Home Affairs and Law Minister spoke

After a week of silence, a very unusual thing for the outspoken Law Minister to do so, he finally spoke about the injustice of the Dan Tan case. But to be correct, according to the media, he never say anything about injustice. In other words there is no injustice.

Shanmugam said the law, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act(CLTPA) is sound. He said there is nothing wrong with this law. I agree. He also said ‘a majority of Singaporeans support it’. This part I am not sure. If I were to conduct a poll in my blog, I can guarantee at least 70% will be against it unless Raymond and his clowns appeared to stuff the votes. Would be good if the minister can enlighten the people on where he got this impression that a majority of Singaporeans support it. Is it because no one is demonstrating against it, no one is marching on the streets, or no one spoke against it? See, no protest so everyone must be happy.  I am not saying the minister is wrong on this. He could be right. Just not sure how he got the numbers to support his claim of a majority.

Ok, nothing is wrong with the law. So is there anything wrong with this case? The Chief Justice and his appeals judges said it was wrong to detain Dan Tan and summarily released him. If there is nothing wrong, then am I right to say that the Chief Justice and his peers must be wrong? Why was Dan Tan detained without trial and with no conviction, for two years?  According to Shanmugam, ‘the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had assessed Tan to be a threat, and his detention in 2013 was “on good grounds”’ Oh the MHA made an assessment.

What was Shanmugam saying, the law is ok, the detention is by an assessment of MHA which was also ok?  So there is really nothing wrong. Would the MHA appeal against the decision of the Appeals Court since everything is ok? Ok, he said MHA is not going to appeal, or MHA is accepting the court’s decision.  

Now the bad part, the international observers, not sure who the heck these observers were, and former, not current, Interpol investigators, have taken issue with the court’s decision.  So?

And this is the betterer part, ‘From their perspective, without having looked at the grounds of the Court of Appeal’s judgement, they take it at the headline, that he is being released by the courts and they can’t understand.’  Oh, like that ah! Does it mean that they are all so superficial, shallow, ignorant, just like the readers in my blog and in TRE, only read headlines and jumped into conclusions? These are law enforcement officers, and they acted like that without thinking, without knowing the truth? And our Court of Appeals must therefore take note of these superficial jokers’ concern, that they did not understand?

Shall the Chief Justice or the Law Minister write to these international observers and former Interpol investigators to explain to them why the Court had to release Dan Tan so that they will not be unhappy with the Court’s decision? If not, would it damage the reputation of Singapore or our justice system? Or the release of Dan Tan is going to post a threat to our peace and security?

What is the best thing to do? Rearrest Dan Tan or what?