Firstly, they used a photograph obtained from a suspect blog. Now they brush it aside as “not worth discussing”.

I’m not a lawyer, but is it normal for either side to submit a piece of evidence only to say that it is “not worth discussing” when the other party starts to question its authenticity? I didn’t know you can tikam* your evidence. Heh heh… like that I also wanna be a lawyer.

Rebuttals by Malaysia turn out to be a surprise

It countered few of the new arguments raised by Singapore

IN ITS final pleadings on Pedra Branca before an international court, Malaysia surprisingly rebutted few of the fresh points raised by Singapore earlier this week.

It chose instead to restate its chief argument that the Johor sultanate possessed the original title to Pedra Branca.

Malaysia’s counsel offered no substantive response to a new argument Singapore fleshed out on Monday and Tuesday, upon which the verdict in the case could well hang.

What Singapore did was to tell the court that if neither side could prove it had title to the disputed island, then Singapore’s claim must prevail because it was the only one with state activities on Pedra Branca in the past 150 years.

On Thursday, a day set aside for Malaysia’s rebuttals, its counsel James Crawford said the shift in the Singapore position showed that ‘doubts have set in’.

But he quickly moved on to other issues, after promising to return to the matter in the final half of Malaysia’s rebuttals (which was set to end late on Friday night, Singapore time).

There was no response either to Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar’s speech on Monday, in which he rebutted five allegations Malaysia levelled at Singapore last week, including a charge that Singapore had concealed letters from the court.

As for a brewing controversy over Malaysia’s use of a photograph taken from a suspect blog, that was brushed aside by one counsel as ‘not worth discussing’.

Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the International Court of Justice to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.

Malaysia’s stand is that the Johor sultanate possessed the title to Pedra Branca - which it calls Pulau Batu Puteh - from time immemorial.

It claims the Johor rulers gave permission to Britain to build and operate a lighthouse there, and that Singapore continued to do so after it gained independence.

Singapore disputes that.

It argues that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is, it belonged to no one, when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built the Horsburgh Lighthouse there.

In the 160 years since, Britain and then Singapore have confirmed and maintained their title through a series of actions that were an open, continuous and effective display of state authority, it told the court.

In restating Malaysia’s case on Thursday, its lawyers said Singapore had failed to prove that Pedra Branca was terra nullius in the 1840s.

They said that Orang Laut, or sea gypsies, who paid allegiance to the Sultan of Johor, had fished in the waters around Pedra Branca for centuries.

That showed the island could not be terra nullius, they added, but belonged to the Johor ruler.

But Singapore, in its rebuttal, had noted that not all the Orang Laut in the area paid allegiance to the Johor Sultan.

It also pointed out that the Orang Laut’s fishing activities were private acts which, under international law, have no bearing on sovereignty. Only state activities, such as those carried out by Singapore, do.

On Thursday, Malaysia’s counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, ridiculed Singapore’s argument that the British intended to claim sovereignty over Pedra Branca when they went and built a lighthouse there in 1847.

‘What they wanted was a light. The addition of so small an item to the vast British empire never entered their minds,’ he said.

The hearing ends once Malaysia wraps up its rebuttals (set to end late last night, Singapore time).

The verdict on the case is expected next year.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 23rd November 2007

* tikam - a malay phrase meaning to choose randomly

I just saw the music video at http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/video.htm. Hmm… I don’t quite know what to make of it, but can someone tell me what was the MV all about?

I have made some observations though, that:

• It was generally a good effort
• People who were in the MV didn’t quite know how to rap (but that’s ok)
• There was at least one person who looked like he/she was forced to do the "yo-yo-check-it-out" sign
• It was one brave guy who donned the red underwear cape

I’m not sure what to make of it. Really. I’m in… shock!!! *gasp*

Update: So it’s in the news after all! =P

YES, yes, y’all, they don’t stop!

The top brass in the Media Development Authority (MDA) have pulled in 20,000 views on the video-sharing website YouTube in just two days.

It is a feat few local acts manage. A video of opposition leader Chiam See Tong during the last General Election - considered well watched - has been viewed only about 11,000 times.

The MDA video, classified under ‘comedy’ on YouTube, features the agency’s senior people jabbing their fingers in the air and rapping about a vibrant Singapore.

It was produced to showcase the agency’s work on the media scene.

The brainchild of MDA communications director Cassandra Tay, the four-minute clip was first shown at a staff conference in April.

It was also screened at the reception areas of offices and to new staff.

The rap video was so well received that it was later sent to those in the industry in a memory drive together with the agency’s annual report.

A version was also put on its website.

The public cottoned on after newspaper reports this week and so far, at least six copies of the video have been put up on YouTube.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 23rd November 2007

Went back to “office” again today in the evening and was greeted with a new face behind the counter.

“This is Jason, our new partner”, said a familiar face.

Apparently, Jason just joined Starbucks and is getting familiar with the environment. I placed my usual order of Tazo Chai Tea Latte, more foam, less milk, 4 pumps of Chai, which will probably get him confused should I order from him one day without his mentor around. Soon after, another staff presented a cup of warm water to me and that apparently got him confused.

“Why did they give her a cup of warm water?”, Jason asked his mentor, and she told him that I was their regular customer. Haha… apparently the entire usual team is behind the counter today and almost all recognised me.

Oh well, I guess I am all too comfortable being in a place where everyone knows me. I wonder how it’d be like if they were to change the entire crew one fine day. Hmm…

It’s here! … but I’d have to post more after this post so that this doesn’t remain as the first post on my blog! =P

I came across this quite some time, but didn’t have my camera with me. Now that I have it, I decided to record it down.

Do you know what’s wrong in the video clip?

After almost 1 month, I wonder how many people would have forgotten about it - the incident that got many Singaporeans furious; one that shamed the people involved in their home countries. Did you guess the Trishaw Man incident? Well, you are right.

Apparently, someone asked Bo Davis to write to the New Paper to get his apology published. I didn’t remember reading that article back then, so I really wonder how effective that was.

However, I didn’t manage to come across it in the end, and he’s willing to pay double of the fare. Is it time to forgive and forget?

And oh, they are still claiming that they did pay the Trishaw Man $10 before they left…

IT has been suggested to me by a Singapore resident that it would be a good idea to forward my apology to The New Paper.

I offer my sincerest apologies to Mr Lee, his son and everyone who has been offended.

It was very disrespectful and insensitive to make fun of an old man. If you knew us, you’d realise that we are actually nice guys.

On that night, we’d had a few beers, were slightly drunk and needed to get back to our hostel. So we began walking up the street looking for a taxi.

The trishaw rider was waiting at the side of the road and suggested we take his taxi.

At first, we declined as we wanted an actual car, but he insisted we get in.

I thought, okay, I’d never been on one before and told him our destination. He said $10, which was fine.

After setting off, I did start laughing. I was a little drunk and thought it was funny how slow we were going.

I did actually ask the driver if I could peddle before we got the camera out.

So after travelling hardly any of the distance agreed, I could see that it was stupid for us to continue and said we should get out.

We had only travelled around a quarter of the agreed distance so I, at that time, thought $5 was reasonable.

Bearing in mind that we’d just come from Thailand where drivers initially charge way over the odds and it’s customary to haggle.

I don’t know why Mr Lee said we didn’t pay, when in the end we gave him the $10.

I know I was laughing, but I wouldn’t dream of not paying for the ride. That would be unforgivable.

The camera cuts out before we actually leave the trishaw, but I can guarantee that we paid the $10 before we left.

I don’t mind paying Mr Lee an extra $10 as an apology via bank transfer.

My utmost apologies again to Mr Lee and his son. If it were my dad with three young guys laughing at him, I’d want to find out who they were and speak my mind.

But I just want to confirm again that we did pay.

Bonard Davies

Article obtained from The Electric New Paper dated 17th November 2007 on 23rd November 2007

I once spoke to a Malaysian Malay who told me that the Malays in his country are actually not lazy, but rather, they believe that the land was given to them (I think he mentioned that it was by Allah, but I am not sure) and that they do not need to work very hard, but instead will be able to harvest the crops that’s provided for them.

From him, I found out a few things:

• that the Malays were thought to be lazy
• that this supposedly resulted in Malaysia being not as economically competitive as its neighbour - Singapore
• that when Malaysian Malays come to Singapore, they start to work very hard and be very competitive

To me, it was something very new, partly because I have never considered Malaysian Malays to be lazy. I have always thought that because the country is big and that they have natural resource, they thus do not need to slog hard as Singaporeans, where the country is deprived of all other natural resources.

However, I came across this statement by someone who posted on RedCafe.net:

We’ve been put in our place by Singapore for years, simply because the Singaporean government know exactly what it takes to survive. The Malaysian government on the other hand, is interested in 2 things (i) how to enrich themselves at the country’s expense, and (ii) how to dispense patronage and exert influence to enrich their friends and relatives at the country’s expense.

We’ve turned into a country of lazy, stupid people who go to the government for handouts, which will run out pretty soon. It’s very sad for the minority who genuinely want to survive on their own two feet with a decent standard of living in 20 years time. I think in about 30 or so years, we’ll be in the same situation as Bangladesh and the Philippines are now - exporting our skilled labour to fill unskilled jobs, because the relative difference in wealth will be so great.

I’m not sure if the author of this post is a Malay, but even he/she also slams her own country on their supposed laziness. To further quote from my Malay friend, are people really meant to work this hard? Or are Malaysians really lazy?

For this, a Christian friend of mine shared his views - that everything that Christians have is provided by Jehovah Jireh - the Lord will provide. He believed that the moment he has to work extremely hard (read: long hours, no rest, etc), it is a sign from God that he has to move on (to another job) because God never meant for his children to slog.

True enough, he changed from Company A to Company B then to Company C before going to Company D, where it got bought over and he took a break looking for a Company E before he eventually went back to Company A - with an overall pay increment!

If I were to take him as an example, then I would really believe that God does provide because he seemed to readily find a job every time. However, I am quite a pragmatic and realistic person where work is concerned because I don’t think my future boss will pay me if I just work in a mediocre fashion.

Perhaps it’s because this is Uniquely Singapore and not Israel? Hmm…

The last time when I had to change my address, I brought my family along, with their IDs and electricity bills and telephone bills and whatever other documents so that I can prove that I was indeed living with them and not a, ahem, fly-by-night tenant. It was almost a great event that involved everyone in the household.

However, the update process was very quick and easy and I’m not sure, but I don’t think any of the document that we brought down had to be used. It was as simply as filling up a form or two and signing some documents. They then printed some sticker so that it could be affixed over the old address on my ID.

It was as simple as that. So, whenever I shifted house, I’d just have to repeat the exercise all over again. It then occurred to me that it is also possible for someone to lie about their change of address, especially in Singapore where your address determines:

• bonuses from government - the kind of property that you stay in apparently determines how much you’d get in their last bonus payout exercise
• the points you get for hall application - because the further your address (in terms of postal code), the more points you get for hall application
• the school that you can send your kid to - because priority is given to residents staying nearer to the school
• your social standing - if you are one of the people who are conscientious about what your address in your ID says

Apparently, someone did lie to get his address changed and it had caught up with him 4 years later - and it was because of

• investigations into his sole proprietor legal firm
• someone else registering their children from the same address

So, did that “someone else” lie as well? No. Apparently, “someone” paid the owner of a place so that he becomes a legal tenant of sorts, but chose not to move in. However, I’m not sure if the tenure had expired, but the same unit was rented to “someone else”, whose kid is registered in the same, ahem, prestigious school.

I do pity the “someone” though because it shows the extent of things that Singaporean parents do for their children. Of course, I do not know the whole story yet but the poor kid may probably have to transfer out of the school into a new environment all over again. She’s in Primary 4 now and I’m not sure how well she’ll adapt for the next two years.

Hmm… all-girls’ school in Bukit Timah. Isn’t that either Raffles Girls’ Primary School (RGPS) or Singapore Chinese Girls’ School (SCGS)?

IT WAS that reputable all-girls’ school in Bukit Timah for his little girl or bust.

So a lawyer lied to get her in - first by making a false change-of-address report to a police officer that he had moved into the neighbourhood, and then by lying to the school’s vice-principal that the family was living within a kilometre of the school.

The lies, told in 2003, have now caught up with him.

But Tan Sok Ling, 40, has other problems. Suspended from legal practice this year for accounting irregularities in his firm, he was yesterday convicted in court of lying to a public servant and could face jail time.

It was during the hearing on this matter that his lies emerged.

The court heard that, to give weight to his story, Tan even paid $1,600 a month to use the address of a condominium apartment as his mailing address.

He might have got away with his lie too - had the owner of the apartment not rented it out to a couple who registered their daughter at the same school.

The girl and Tan’s daughter, who were in Primary 4 this year, are still in the school.

Tan is now likely to be struck off the rolls.

This has almost invariably been the fate of lawyers convicted of forgery and cheating when they face the Court of Three Judges, which rules in disciplinary cases involving lawyers, say those in legal circles.

Deputy Public Prosecutor James Lee told the court yesterday that Tan was suspended from practice in March this year for breaching accounting regulations at his now-defunct law firm, a sole proprietorship.

When he found a rental apartment in 2003, he told its owner he would not occupy it, but was willing to pay $1,600 every month for the use of the address of the unit.

He next went to the police to report his ‘change of address’, so he could use the new information to get his daughter into the school.

She got in.

However, unknown to Tan, the owner of the apartment rented it out to tenants who also put their daughter in that school.

This came to light after Tan was charged with forgery.

Separate investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department revealed that he had forged stamp duty certificates between September 2004 and February last year.

In order to make a quick buck from his clients, he inflated the amount of stamp duties payable on the certificates and pocketed the difference.

For example, he told one client to pay $13,500 when duty payable was $8,100.

His lawyer, Mr Peter Low of Colin Ng & Partners, yesterday pleaded for leniency on his behalf, saying that Tan, a first offender, was ‘extremely remorseful’ and had cooperated fully with the police.

Mr Low added that Tan, who has since returned the money to his client, did what he did because his firm was buckling under a ‘tight cashflow situation’.

Tan will return to court to be sentenced on Thursday.

For lying to the police, he could be jailed for up to six months. For forgery, he could be jailed for up to seven years.

cheekin@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 23rd November 2007

Do you complain about bad service? I know I do, but I don’t do it to get compensation. I do it so that they know what went wrong and won’t repeat the same mistake to the next customer.

This thing about being in the service line is that you have to always think from the customer perspective, but here’s where the trouble lies. Different customers have different expectations when they make a complain. Some customers expect a compensation, whereas others, like myself, expect them to acknowledge the issue and make corrections, where necessary, to ensure that the same mistake does not happen again - be it to me or to another customer.

For something such as finding a hair in the soup, I’d have just expected the restaurant to apologise and change the soup. I don’t think they should just tell the customer that it’s common to find hair in food. I’m sure it’d soon be common to find cut fingernails, nose droppings, ear wax and droplets of unidentifiable perspiration in the food too. However, I feel that the chef of the restaurant should take pride in the food that he prepared to be serve and not simply leave it to the floor people to do a shoddy job.

ALL she wanted was a sincere apology for a strand of hair found in a bowl of shark’s fin soup at her wedding dinner.

But the matter blew up into a month-long exchange between the bride, Mrs Wendy Scully, 29, and Starworth, the company which runs events at the Chijmes Hall.

When the public relations manager felt she was getting nowhere, she shot a letter to this newspaper on Tuesday.

By then, it was not just the 15cm strand of hair that riled her, but Starworth general manager K.K. Ng’s suggestion that it could have come from one of her guests.

‘He told me it is common to find hair in food,’ she told The Straits Times.

The VIP table’s guests, which included her husband’s parents and siblings, had not touched the serving bowl, so how could their hair have got in, she asked.

When contacted, Mr Ng said he had suggested it only as a possibility.

He added that none of the staff that night had long hair.

Another sticking point with Mrs Scully was that she had to wait almost a month - until Mr Ng returned from a month’s medical leave - before she could speak to him on the phone over this matter on Nov 15.

His reply scuttled the company’s earlier efforts to settle Mrs Scully’s unhappiness with an offer of a set dinner for four worth about $270, or a $300 dining voucher.

Mrs Scully had rebuffed the offer, saying she spent $20,000 on the dinner, and that she wanted an amount enough for her to take the table’s guests out to dinner again to make it up to them.

The company stuck to its initial offer until Mr Ng’s return, believing it was fair because only the bowl of shark’s fin soup was affected, and the staff had offered to change it right away.

Last week, Mr Ng even upped the offer to an eight-course meal for 10, but it was his refusal to accept full responsibility that made her decide to go public with her story.

A simple apology would have sufficed, said Mrs Scully, who said her in-laws keep asking her if the company has given an explanation.

‘At the very least, apologise for taking so long to call me back, accept responsibility for the incident and offer a sincere apology for upsetting me and my mother-in-law,’ she said.

A service consultant said Starworth should have acknowledged Mrs Scully’s anger and admitted to its fault immediately.

Said OTi Consulting Singapore’s chief executive Helen Lim-Yang: ‘When customers are angry, they don’t want to hear excuses or pushing of blame. All they want is for their emotions to be acknowledged and for someone, preferably senior management, to apologise profusely.’

And the apology should not come across as defensive, she added.

Mr Ng replied that an apology was made on the spot that night by the operations manager, and that the follow-ups with Mrs Scully focused on ‘dollar and cents compensation because we thought it was what she wanted’.

But he stopped short of accepting responsibility for the incident, saying that for something ‘debatable’ like this, it ‘may not be very fair to push everything to us’.

‘We are just saying hair was found in food. We do not know where it came from, but we would like to make it up to her by amicably solving this.’

With the current stalemate, Ms Lim-Yang suggested that Starworth set up a meeting to deal with it face-to-face.

‘Coupons or compensations are a quick fix. They still don’t take away the anger or replace a sincere action,’ she said.

marcelp@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 23rd November 2007