Tinker Barber Soldier Spy

why there are elections

2018-08-08T15:35:00.001+08:00

To curb abuse of power, to empty the cupboards of skeletons, regime change is unavoidable. For no matter how inscrutable the system of internal controls, and no matter how facetious the auditing, nothing beats removing the incumbent. Otherwise banks would have no business rotating branch managers. Otherwise dynastic rule by monarchs, regents, dowagers and embedded elder statesmen would still be the order of the day. Otherwise there would be no use for democratic elections. Seizing the opportunity, a self-serving lawyer by training gratified himself at NKF, adjusting his employment remuneration to whim. Can you afford to grant any self-serving lawyer unbridled liberty with your Constitution?

dishonest lawyer or politician

2010-12-08T22:24:00.000+08:00

Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245
S(050536)

4 May 2005

Attn:
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore

Complaint under Section 85(1) and Section 75B of the Legal Profession Act

In the year 2000 (April or something, sorry I did not retain a copy), I wrote to your office filing a complaint about a sale agreement between Mr. Koh Wing Chye (deceased within a month from date of sale) and Mr. Ow Koon Thiam over the property known as 10H Jervois Road.

My complaint was that the signature of Mr. Koh Wing Chye, the seller, in the sale agreement, that was witnessed by Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn, the lawyer representing the seller, was an obvious forgery.

The police, of course, wasn’t investigating. Ms. Hoo Sheau Peng is a judge. The law society, of course, wasn’t investigating. It is no longer an independent body.

So why am I complaining? Maybe because I believe the truth will come out one fine day? I’m dreaming, of course.

Anyway, since I was certain the dead do tell tales, I engaged the services of a political figure lawyer to pursue the case of the forged signature. Chiam & Co. offered to help, on condition I represented myself. Chiam & Co. offered only expertise. The case started as DC2514/2000M.

Funny thing was, Chiam & Co. wasn’t being very honest about its intentions. In the words of lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng (maybe not his exact words, but the meaning is there), "I’m surprised the case was even allowed to be filed". In other words, the case was dead as filed.

Mr. Koh Chong Huat complained to the police, I was told, in July that year, about having his life threatened, and about e-mail harassment by me in what was to become DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00.

Mr. Koh Thong is Mr. Koh Chong Huat’s father. They both reside at 71 Faber Green. Mr. Koh Thong was one of two defendents named in DC2514/2000M. Mr. Yik Tze Kong is the lawyer representing the two defendents in DC2514/2000M.

Mr. Yik Tze Kong is not an honest officer of the court either. Mr. Koh Chong Huat made me a "wanted person". Mr. Yik Tze Kong applied to have DC2514/2000M struck off. I refer you to SIC9030/2000/C. Mr. Yik Tze Kong also invited to supply a copy of a will. I refer to his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000.

I was duly arrested unaware of what lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients did. The judge presiding over DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00 wasn’t made aware either. He wasn’t particularly a nice judge. In fact, he looked liked a kangaroo. Anyway, I was standing way-off what could have been a hundred yards?. I wasn’t allowed anything so I cannot measure the distance. I cannot be sure if he was or wasn’t an animal. Anyway, animal or not, he duly struck off the charge of criminal intimidation.

Something was not right. The District Public Prosecutor was sweating profusely. The witness, Mr. Koh Chong Huat, I was questioning was speaking in ever softer tones. I couldn’t hear the replies to my questions, but the judge said he could. I read somewhere that kangaroos have good hearing, or was it bats? Or was it kangaroo bats?

The judge got hungry or something. Or maybe he felt sorry for the rookie District Public Prosecutor that was handed my case. He offered to screw my ass on only half the e-mail harassment charges if I capitulated. I had been worried about being in jail for seven years. That wasn’t going to happen now. I was in jail for five months already. One more month wasn’t going to make much of a difference. I was more worried about not being able to empty the post office box I was renting as I wasn’t able to renew the rental. So I capitulated to the kangaroo.

The rest, like they say, is history. Once I was arrested, it was important the actions taken by lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients be swept under the carpet. If not for the honesty of the postman, the kangaroo and myself would happily or unhappily have lived on unawares. I was released five days after my post office box rental was due. There was still time. Postmasters are honest, believe me. At least the one in charge of post box rentals. I think I can still dig up his name somewhere if you require a referral as to who may make an honest lawyer.

The kangaroo wasn’t aware. I tried to make him aware. But I only had $400+ in my pocket. Had to sell my scanner and printer to get the "+". A member of his flock wasn’t too keen about straining her eyes, apparently, when I filed a complaint about undisclosed facts of my case.

Nobody appeared for SIC9030/2000/C. I refer you to letter dated 19 April 2001 by Glen de Souza for Registrar. Two days after I capitulated, Mdm. Lim Swee Ying, the other defendant in DC2514/2000M changed her lawyers to Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong. Did I mention that no lawyer is honest? It was written somewhere in a Buddhist magazine, in an article contributed by a lawyer.

Anyway, I am not saying that Tan, Loh or Wong, whoever was representing Mdm. Lim Swee Ying now, was not honest. There is nothing to indicate him or her to be not honest. The change of lawyers by Mdm. Lim Swee Ying was made so that what was offered by Mr. Yik Tze Kong in his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000 need not be carried out.

I can’t read minds, as you may be aware already. I can’t possibly tell what was going through the mind of Chiam & Co. when he saw me out so soon. He dragged DC2514/2000M all the way to almost the time for it to lapse, told me he was retiring, returned my files after a few days of delays, never mentioned about DC2514/2000M lapsing, and took almost a year after that to finally close shop.

After consulting with lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng, who mentioned that "on top of his head, without checking, so don’t quote him, if a case such as was aforementioned, where the seller died so close to the sale, the time period allowed for legal action is twelve years and not six years" as was advised by Chiam & Co. and the legal aid bureau.

Chiam & Co. wasn’t apparently representing me. I checked the files returned more carefully now that I had an honest and comprehensive alternative opinion. There were too many liquid paper marks over the court submissions. Even the clerk serving the summons wrote that he took instructions from me personally when, in fact, I never saw his face.

I think, if you represent an independent body, you might look into the case. But, alas, you do not any longer represent an independent body.

If, however, you should require to see more evidence, I can supply them, as I live nearby right now. But I should imagine, the court possess more than sufficient evidence, as I’ve already mentioned them above.

If you require the police to investigate the case first, then I suggest you let cows into your council meetings. They’re better than shredders. They have four stomachs, I’m told. Virtually unrecognizable as documents after the four stomachs. They won’t get jammed either.

In confidence

(Attachment)

Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245 S(050536)
27 May 2005

Attn:
Ms. Prabha Dubed
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore
Fax: 65363855

Re: LS/4/2005/ML/PD

I believe my letter to be not that badly written, but that you choose to fudge the issue.

My previous correspondence with your society was a complaint against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn. The complaint was about a forgery in which she was involved. That complaint was made in year 2000. I'm sorry, but I do not now have the reply from Ms. Yasho Dhoraisingam. Maybe you want to refer to her or to Jennifer or something, who is her secretary?

Mr. Chan Fook Meng is the lawyer who gave me second opinion. If you can trace him to Unilegal LLC, you should be able to figure out that Messrs. Chiam & Co. only had one lawyer. But I guess your brain is not quite up to that sort of strenuous deduction.

Do not forever more send me your information leaflets regarding the lodging of complaints under sections 85(1) and 75B of the Act, which is poorly written and which obviously does not explain anything clearly.

My complaint, to put it simply, is that the sole former lawyer of the former law firm, Messrs. Chiam & Co. and Mr. Yik Tze Kong colluded to pervert justice. Which does not mean my previous complaint in the year 2000 against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn no longer stand. Whether the former law firm Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong was involved is not so clear-cut. If you want me to spell it out to you, maybe you should provide me with your society's version of the penal code.

Perhaps you can get a clearer picture of what I am talking about by perusing the court papers I mentioned or what I have written on my website, http://www.plusminus48degreeswobble.blogspot.com.

Yours sincerely

intelligence begets counter-intelligence

2010-11-08T22:24:00.000+08:00

Osama bin Laden:

What you are proposing to do is outright dangerous. Your Home Ministry may use this as opportunity to detain you without recourse at his pleasure under ISA.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I am using an imaginary conversation with you to tell a story, a story which I otherwise find extremely difficult to tell. I have only tried this format once before in a class assignment during my third year in secondary school. The English teacher said it was mindless copying of western story writers’ style. Her reaction was very negative. I’ve forgotten what else she wrote. The entire assignment was struck off in red.

Osama bin Laden:

Nevertheless you understand that what you are doing is extremely dangerous. Your government does not tolerate even imaginary conversations with me ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

What I know from the news media is that the CIA admits their leads on your whereabouts have gone stone cold ...

Osama bin Laden:

Thank god for that. I don’t necessarily enjoy having daisy cutters dropped on my backyard on a regular basis ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

Don’t break into my conversation midway. It’s very difficult for me to continue from where I left off. I’m not a Muslim, never will be. It’s not that I don’t have Muslim friends before. But I find few of them trustworthy. You can say I am Christian, but not the congregating type. I don’t trust them either. It’s not that my own race is any better. Or the Yank expatriates in Singapore can be trusted. It’s the exchange rate influence ...

Osama bin Laden:

I’m losing you. What on earth has exchange rate got to do with our imaginary conversation being extremely dangerous for you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

For the past ten years, certain parts of my country’s government which I do not know for certain, but is extremely highly likely to be the Home Ministry, has been engaged in covert activities to my detriment, using as agents, probably with financial incentives, locals and foreigners alike ...

Osama bin Laden:

Alright. I get the exchange rate bit. Tell me; do you suspect that your phone line is being tapped right now?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Probably most of the time whenever I find the money to have a phone line the past ten years. It sure explains a lot of how they got to know of what I’m doing so damn fast.

Osama bin Laden:

I don’t tolerate expletives in whomever I’m having conversation with. OK. Alright. So we are having this imaginary conversation about me interviewing you about your imaginary interest to join my organization as an intelligence directive? Why not join the CIA or MI5 or Mossad.

Lee Hsien Tau:

They only recruit citizens, I believe.

Osama bin Laden:

No. They operate internationally, at least they engage in cross border operations and not necessarily because of the exchange rate influence ... sorry if I offend you ... they do require foreign operatives for such activities.

Lee Hsien Tau:

After ten years of not being able to find consistent employment, malnourishment, and no guaranteed place of stay, I am a living shell, not too different from the condition my father was in when he died, except that I can talk and limp around and I’m literate. I don’t think I can find gainful employ now in my condition. My mouth is full of rotting teeth, and they don’t ache. They just rot away silently. The CIA won’t waste money on me. I need knee operations for sure.

Osama bin Laden:

You think my organization has the money to spend on bringing you up to deployable specifications ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

If you find me useful ... your organizational goals dictate that you make decisions that are rarely based on financial considerations.

Osama bin Laden:

Why don’t you start from the beginning? Who did you offend in high office?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Not that I know of. And my father left without telling if he offended anybody in high office. He is the cowardly type. Goes to work early in the morning and comes back late in the evening, has too much beer and smoke, and goes to bed. Not much of a conversationalist. Does gripe a lot about a relative called Koh Thong to his wife. Never about politics at all.

Osama bin Laden:

Let me guess. In the absence of your father, your mother ruled the roost. She is extremely deceptive, and if she ever held any job, she could probably fit in quite nicely as head of the KGB, for example.

Lee Hsien Tau:

How did you guess?

Osama bin Laden:

You forget. We helped our fellow turbans kick the Cossacks back across the border. The KGB chief who became chairman of the Supreme Soviet ordered the Cossacks in.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yuri Andropov. When Brezhnev died, the one who had to make way for Konstantin Chernenko or somebody ...

Osama bin Laden:

Get on with your story.

Lee Hsien Tau:

When I was in secondary two, the coffee shop my father was operating at Chulia St had to close. The landlord sold out without informing the tenants. Because the housing board was after my father over being co-owner of the provision shop at Dunlop St where he worked the other half of the day that property was sold. The money he got for his share as well as his CPF was used to buy a walk-up apartment known as 10H Jervois Rd where we moved to from 10F Nile Rd. He did not find regular employ after that. His money lasted until the late eighties, and his mind deteriorated.

Osama bin Laden:

Go on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was being manipulated by my mother’s lies ...

Osama bin Laden:

Don’t bother to explain that part ... I can guess. Go on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

In the early nineties, around about the time Wong Kan Seng took over as Home Minister, this Koh Thong had come on visits. The impression was that my father approached this Koh Thong for help with the family finances, but my mother and sisters and brother were arranging things behind the scenes. The arrangement was my mother goes grocery shopping every morning, and my father met up with her later to help carry back the stuff.

Osama bin Laden:

So.

Lee Hsien Tau:

She was MIA on a regular basis. Gave vague excuses about my father not meeting up. Cast aspersions about his mind going and such.

Osama bin Laden:

And you swallowed that?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Do you know that sometimes it is easier to be gullible than to have to verify everything you hear. Come on, I am talking about family here.

Osama bin Laden:

So now you think you know better that you qualify to be an intelligence directive? This is an imaginary conversation but, what I’ve heard so far doesn’t qualify you for the job. A suicide bomber, maybe. Go on. By the way, how come you know so much? Were you not at work?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was Air Force personnel for six years on my polytechnic diploma.

Osama bin Laden:

So you have no problems with guns. Know how to work a bomb?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I said I was Air Force personnel, but I had nothing to do with airplanes. I did read a lot about airplanes and rockets instead of what I was supposed to be studying during my polytechnic days, but ...

Osama bin Laden:

Know how to work a bomb?

Lee Hsien Tau:

This may be an imaginary conversation, but your line of questioning would really get me into trouble.

Osama bin Laden:

Why don’t you just answer the question? I may be interested in you after all, hypothetically anyway.

Lee Hsien Tau:

The closest I ever got to working in an airport is airport communications. Been up in the control tower and underground bunker and such. But prior to that, I was working with missiles, anti-aircraft stuff. So it is inevitable that I read up something on pyrotechnics.

Osama bin Laden:

Got charged for in-subordination, three times.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Twice. The first time was for seven day. You see I got this problem. Ever since the age of fourteen to fifteen, my face and ears has been hemorrhaging oil, it’s been the cause of all my problems. People think I have a work attitude, but ...

Osama bin Laden:

Your major thinks you have a bad attitude?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I think he’s nuts but I can’t tell him that or I would have gotten more than seven days. He’s a mechanical guy but fancies he knows more. He wanted my take on this rechargeable battery problem the Bofors 70 missile system was having. I may not have been concentrating on my studies during my polytechnic days, but everybody knows about this problem with rechargeable batteries, at least, it is well documented. I don’t have the authority, I’m just a corporal, and I don’t have access to a lab, so I gave him a one liner report. You should know. They haven’t solved the problem yet even with mobile phones commonplace.

Osama bin Laden:

I don’t know. I leave my battery recharging to the girls Gaddafi sent me. I don’t know what else to do with them. I am supposed to be holier than thou you know.

Lee Hsien Tau:

If I knew the solution, I’d be rolling in royalties. The major didn’t take kindly to my one liner. He commissioned SEEL to do a study on the subject. The cost was equivalent to my salary for a year. The multi-paged report can be summarized into my one liner. They got paid equal to my one year’s salary. I got canned with an attitude problem which eventually got me seven days. But I knew I had it coming. Cannot speak my mind, cannot don’t speak my mind. No authority to do what I am tasked. It’s a management problem. The major should know better. He drives. His car battery has the same problem. But because of its requirement and therefore design, it’s not that noticeable a problem. I’m just caught between a rock and a hard place. It’s like driftwood. Like when I was in primary school ...

Osama bin Laden:

What happened in primary school?

Lee Hsien Tau:

We were being lined up for something, then I saw the nurse, the needle, and the Bunsen burner and I took off. They caught me after a chase, did what they wanted, and I could only sulk for a week. I still get this impaling paralyzing pain on one or the other of my arms occasionally. I don’t think it is psychological, more like malnutrition.

Osama bin Laden:

This has nothing to do with our imaginary interview. Can we move on?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I got something to add. One year we were studying Malay. The next, we were studying history in Chinese.

Osama bin Laden:

What’s wrong with that? Driftwood?

Lee Hsien Tau:

That meant I had to see more of my Chinese teacher than I cared to. Every time she entered the classroom, I had to take my book and sit right under her nose. The problem is I cannot pen the Chinese characters as well as she does. That put me off learning the language. Then young as I was, I had a brain wave. I invented Hanyu Pinyin, my version, anyway. Know what I got for my inventiveness?

Osama bin Laden:

What?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Red hands, red arms and red legs. Humiliation in front of the class. Even my sister was introduced to the class. The only one left since I joined the school.

Osama bin Laden:

Let’s move on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

So after that the major transferred me over to the airport side. The captain there had a problem with one of his staff and made an example of me. Ten days inside. Filed a complaint when I was released. But you know how it is. Officers look after each other. It is not that officers that don’t do not exist. They quit. But they did modify my performance assessment when my contract ended.

Osama bin Laden:

So after that what did you do?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I fancied getting an education overseas. Saved as much as I could, but the pound kept appreciating ...

Osama bin Laden:

The exchange rate influence again?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Give me a break. What I had was enough for law in Wales, if I tightened my belt. I made it to Wales but u-turned.

Osama bin Laden:

Why?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Too damned cold. Would have been shaking all the time if I penny-pinged. I was shaking in the polytechnic library here because my mother wasn’t giving me food money.

Osama bin Laden:

The polytechnic canteen is subsidized, wasn’t it?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No money for me. My brother got all he wanted, but no money for me. Primary school, secondary school, polytechnic, I went empty till I got home.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So you u-turned from Wales. Whereabouts in Wales? Cardiff?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup.

Osama bin Laden:

What did you do next?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I became a technician at SPH round about the time that JBJ was being sued.

Osama bin Laden:

So you saw what was going on at the paper?

Lee Hsien Tau:

You know what to expect. Sumiko Tan was typing away on her terminal with a bunch of people looking over her shoulders. I sometimes fancied myself as a sub-ed. At least I can spot Flying Falcon should be Fighting Falcon a mile off. But you can’t tell the sub-ed. They would think you’re way out of line.

Osama bin Laden:

Why not become one?

Lee Hsien Tau:

This may not be an 'obey all orders and no questions asked' organization, but they can fire you. I have too much of an independent streak to be a reporter in this country.

Osama bin Laden:

What next?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was still there when the new prime minister took to organizing dancing on Orchard Rd.

Osama bin Laden:

That was within the two years you were at SPH?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. One of the staff taught me a little software programming, I tried some to automate some repetitive work, and somebody erased it every time I went off duty.

Osama bin Laden:

Didn’t you have your own sign-on?

Lee Hsien Tau:

When I joined, there was apparently some office-politics going on. The one who decided to hire me got relegated. I guess I was never given my own sign-on for that reason.

Osama bin Laden:

So?

Lee Hsien Tau:

So I tried my hands at programming. You know when you’re not wanted. I managed to get hired at ABACUS which took me on at drastically reduced pay, which by the way, was a sore point at interviews thereon.

Osama bin Laden:

They sent you to USA on OJT.

Lee Hsien Tau:

ABACUS didn’t tell me the truth. Else I would have changed my savings into dollars and brought it with me. We weren’t learning much on OJT, I had no background in programming, my colleagues were saying they cannot be always ferrying me around.

Osama bin Laden:

Could you not have talked to the company?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Company was managed by SIA. Company would not have listened until I said I wanted to quit. Anyway it was better that I came back. I came back before desert storm. If I came back two years later, my father would still have died; I would still be fed information I cannot verify.

Osama bin Laden:

You mean you’re better off now?

Lee Hsien Tau:

At least I know how he kicked the bucket. I’ve suffered for my knowledge these past ten years, but I would not have it any other way.

Osama bin Laden:

What happened after you flew back before desert storm?

Lee Hsien Tau:

What else could I do? I applied for jobs, gave them to my mother and sister to mail and they removed the stamps and trashed the rest of them.

Osama bin Laden:

You knew then?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Of course not. I understood much later.

Osama bin Laden:

They prefer you not to be around, and when you were, they prefer you to be unemployed.

Lee Hsien Tau:

They were also worried about the savings I still had. What they were about to do cannot see the light of day, much less leave me room to engage legal counsel.

Osama bin Laden:

So you never got called up for interviews, and you never knew why. So what did you do next?

Lee Hsien Tau:

With my savings, I calculated that, all thing assumed to remain the same, if I enrolled for courses at ICPAS for subjects I was not confident in, self-studied the rest, I would have an ACCA qualification, and still have more than enough to handle whatever situation was thrown at me if thing did not go as planned.

Osama bin Laden:

So your mother and sisters and brother had designs on your father? So we are back to this Koh Thong coming home with your father?

Lee Hsien Tau:

10H Jervois Rd is part of what is known as Goldhill Mansions and is under private management. The management decided to move all the mail boxes to one location, and thereafter I was not able to open our mail box. My mother and sister controlled the keys.

Osama bin Laden:

You mean they took control of communications. Are you telling me the management is in on this? That’s a little hard to swallow.

Lee Hsien Tau:

The one who chaired the management was the one who eventually bought my father’s apartment. Somebody called Ow Koon Thiam.

Osama bin Laden:

That’s a little hard to swallow.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My mother is good at manipulating ...

Osama bin Laden:

You mean you’re a sucker at analyzing information till way after, that you never actually missed the eye signals, the slip of the tongue, the inconsistencies that an intelligence directive should have picked up on the go, because it could mean a daisy cutter dropping on his backyard, you just cannot depend on hindsight ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

Easy for you to say. I don’t have the kind of finances or the means you have. Like I said, it was easier to take thing as than have to verify everything you hear.

Osama bin Laden:

So this Ow was in on it.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Like I said, the family moved there from Nile Rd, and we lived there from the mid seventies to mid second month of 1995, I myself stayed till early March. This is a row of walk-up apartments OK. The apartments are owned, and the street level shops are rented. When we moved in, a rattan furniture operation occupied the shop downstairs. One night they vanished.

Osama bin Laden:

And ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

My mother sometimes cannot refrain from showing off. They never can anyway. She said that the owners borrowed from multiple banks and made off ...

Osama bin Laden:

Your mother is illiterate; did you ask who supplied her with the information?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No point asking, she’ll drum up something to cover her over-indulgence in herself.

Osama bin Laden:

So this Ow rented the place vacated by the rattan operation that vanished after they committed bank fraud.

Lee Hsien Tau:

No, they bought the place.

Osama bin Laden:

How did you know they bought the place? Let me guess. Your mother told you.

Lee Hsien Tau:

She also told me this isn’t the only property this Ow owns, that he is two timing ...

Osama bin Laden:

Did you for once ask how she knew? Where she obtained her information?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No. You might as well ask if it’s true.

Osama bin Laden:

As I understand it, you mother is given to lying, so is it true.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I verified it as true later.

Osama bin Laden:

Look, if I let you join my organization, I might as well have a daisy cutter dropped on my backyard. Just as well that this is an imaginary conversation that we are having. How did you verify it?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Can we cover that when we come to it?

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So this Ow came into the picture with intentions you were unaware of. Straight away?

Lee Hsien Tau:

We will never know, unless he tells us. What I can say is that Koh Thong came into the picture with intentions I now know of.

Osama bin Laden:

So what was their plan?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I’d like to keep this simple, or we could go on and on.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Tell it as you like. Your mother tried whatever means possible to make you unhappy with your father, probably even make him unhappy with you, and still manage to starve him at the same time.

Lee Hsien Tau:

How did you know?

Osama bin Laden:

You said you never had money for lunch at school from primary school to polytechnic and you never complained to your father. She must be one smooth talker.

Lee Hsien Tau:

She tried whatever means possible to keep him in bed, still able to engineer occasional outings for him on his own only to have him brought back by the cops ...

Osama bin Laden:

To create an impression ... Wait a minute. Did you not say earlier that your mother went MIA and father went out never to meet her ..?

Lee Hsien Tau:

That was earlier. They hadn’t started Operation Must Die then.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So when they launched operation must die, he was preferred to stay lying down.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My mother and this Koh Thong would still be happier if I wasn’t in the picture. So when the opportunity came ...

Osama bin Laden:

You went AWOL?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Don’t keep jumping the gun on me. Sometimes it helps but sometimes it doesn’t. We are having an imaginary conversation to enable me to tell a difficult story, you know.

Osama bin Laden:

Alright. But if this wasn’t an imaginary conversation, I wouldn’t have you in my organization. I cannot have intelligence directives operating by hindsight ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

Slip-ups always happen. No plan is perfect.

Osama bin Laden:

It’s not your slip-ups I’m concerned about. It’s the opposition slipping up that you’re failing to catch. That I worry about.

Lee Hsien Tau:

When my air force contract expired, I was required to supply three names that cannot be family for clearance to sensitive areas, and my then colleagues wouldn’t help.

Osama bin Laden:

You mean that for six years that was never asked of you, but when you were leaving, the premises became too sensitive for you to enter?

Lee Hsien Tau:

This is something beyond me. My circle of known acquaintances revolves around immediate family and present colleagues. My mother made sure of that ...

Osama bin Laden:

OK. We can skip that. I can tell you don’t have girlfriends. If you had, she would have caused problems. If you hadn’t, she would have made it out to seem like it was a problem when it was necessary that it would appear to be a problem.

Lee Hsien Tau:

You seem very conversant with psychological warfare.

Osama bin Laden:

That I am. I am what two George’s cannot help bushing around.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I cannot produce one, much less three. I cannot produce one now in my present situation to help me god.

Osama bin Laden:

We’ll come to that later. What has producing names got to do with you going AWOL?

Lee Hsien Tau:

If I could produce three names, my reservist would be done there where I was last deployed.

Osama bin Laden:

At the airport. Your prior attitude wasn’t a problem. Your problem with management wasn’t a problem?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Actually no. I take it as water under the river. Reservists attached to our unit don’t do anything. They go for tea-break, lunch, tea-break again, and then they go home. They don’t even need to go to sensitive areas. All they head for is the canteen, and the game machines. I was expecting the same. On the other hand, this ex-colleague of mine called Tan Cheng Kok had no problems with management. Did as he was told. Went off to Scotland to study and never wanted to come back. Cited reservist duty as a problem.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Never mind. So you didn’t have clearance.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My reservist ended up in an F-5 unit.

Osama bin Laden:

Tiger squadron?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup.

Osama bin Laden:

That’s not sensitive?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Well, somebody seemed to think the same, so they canceled the transfer without actually canceling the transfer. So when I showed up for reservist duty, she apologized for the oversight, but did not allow me to leave.

Osama bin Laden:

So this is a sensitive area that they feel you shouldn’t be allowed into, cancelled it without actually doing it, tried to cover themselves when you showed up by insisting you stay.

Lee Hsien Tau:

All she needed to do was pay me my bus-fare out of her own pockets, and I would have been happy to forget everything. My ICPAS classes were starting that very night. You understand why this guy had no problems, went off to UK and never wanted to come back. I am kind of like a nail that keeps standing up. Nails like me get hammered. If I get the opportunity to go to the UK now, I’d brave the cold, I’d never come back.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. You stayed?

Lee Hsien Tau:

But I was transferred soon after to a rapier unit, and asked to show up.

Osama bin Laden:

Isn’t there a period between reservist recalls?

Lee Hsien Tau:

When your mother needs a fix, your mother needs to be fixed.

Osama bin Laden:

Don’t be lewd or we end this imaginary conversation now.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Military installations being sensitive, their whereabouts are not common knowledge, besides being prone to be moved around in land scarce Singapore.

Osama bin Laden:

Just keep your English simple. I don’t see the need for you to turn snobbish. The Queen’s not very likely to take you in just because you can speak her dialect, not in your present circumstances anyway.

Lee Hsien Tau:

OK. I mean I don’t know where to go. And you can trust me; I’m not going to spend taxi-fare going there. They are not going to recompense me much as I’m unemployed.

Osama bin Laden:

You officially went AWOL.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My mother was delighted. Here was an opportunity, presented on a platter, to take me out of the picture, when the time was right. Meantime she could act protective of her cub.

Osama bin Laden:

When the time was right, she called the cops.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. Holed herself up in her room till the cops came.

Osama bin Laden:

So you were charged for in-subordination twice and once for reservist AWOL.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. I was prepared to go all the way this time. Court-martial and all. But the major knew me from my air force days. I was told by the manpower officer all I would be getting is a $75 fine in addition to the free haircut I was already given, if I pleaded guilty. Why is it that I am always guilty? I’d kiss the Queen’s feet if she let me come.

Osama bin Laden:

So you pleaded guilty?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Would you not plead guilty? My problems with the military are nothing compared to my problems with the Home Ministry. Besides, I could come back tomorrow with the fine, and here’s $20 for taxi-fare home.

Osama bin Laden:

So your mother paid the fine for you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. Military men wouldn’t do her bidding, but she knows some Home Ministry men that would.

Osama bin Laden:

How did she come to know some Home Ministry men?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Don’t know. But you might want to ask Koh Thong. You might want to ask how she came about the information I mentioned earlier.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Then what?

Lee Hsien Tau:

The buyer was a willing party to the contract, of course, on condition he was informed when the government was moving to cool property prices ...

Osama bin Laden:

How did you know that?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I have no definite proof here but something I found out post event ...

Osama bin Laden:

What about the seller?

Lee Hsien Tau:

The lawyer acting for the seller signed on his behalf, and my mother got the proceeds. My youngest sister acted as the fall-guy.

Osama bin Laden:

Your youngest sister’s not that stupid?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Not if she was reassured the case would never come to court.

Osama bin Laden:

The lawyer is four years into her practice, she wouldn’t take the risk.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Not if it had to be her, and nobody else.

Osama bin Laden:

She has a sister who is a judge.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Only a court registrar at that particular point in time.

Osama bin Laden:

I suppose if I asked you if you knew where she stayed, you’d tell me where?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I never bothered to find out.

Osama bin Laden:

Can I ask how you find out what you know already?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Can we talk about that later?

Osama bin Laden:

Go on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

To allay further suspicion on my part, the buyer was made out to be last resort, there being no other offer.

Osama bin Laden:

You mean they went through the procedure just to allay your suspicion?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Not acted out just for me. If it should come to pass ...

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Never mind. So the contract was made. What next.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Operation must die was started.

Osama bin Laden:

You mean owner must die.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Owner had an opportunity to die naturally earlier.

Osama bin Laden:

If the owner died earlier, the contract couldn’t be made.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Owner had an opportunity to die naturally earlier after the contract was signed. Owner wouldn’t be allowed to die before then. Not even if Allah wanted to take him.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Your mother wouldn’t let him. So why it was your father had an opportunity to die earlier?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Much as my mother wanted to keep him in bed, he wouldn’t stay in, even in his malnourished condition. He tried to walk and gravity keeps pulling him to the floor. With knockout punches. The floor is more effective than Mike Tyson sometimes.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So he was suffering from internal bleeding in his head. Was that why he couldn’t talk?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I don’t know for sure. I don’t know anything about brains. But he got feverish, and had to be warded. He was operated on.

Osama bin Laden:

He survived the op?

Lee Hsien Tau:

You can’t keep a good man down, but he still couldn’t talk. She was cursing out loud that he didn’t die in the op. Operation must die started in earnest.

Osama bin Laden:

No food?

Lee Hsien Tau:

He was being fed oatmeal with Bovril stirred into it. She ate what she cooked herself to hide the fact that he was not allowed to eat. The hospital provided diapers (paid of course; nothing is free in Singapore) but she wasn’t using them on him. Said he complained it itched. She wanted him to defecate in bed so the stink would keep me away.

Osama bin Laden:

So when did you notice he was being starved.

Lee Hsien Tau:

She got sick of eating oatmeal.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. Go on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

When the contract was signed, Koh Thong bought 45 Tanglin Halt #09-283, and offered free occupation. Of course he claimed to have bought it earlier.

Osama bin Laden:

Of course you found this not to be true much later.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup.

Osama bin Laden:

If this were not an imaginary interview, I would in Donald Trump’s voice say you’re fired, and our conversation would end here.

Lee Hsien Tau:

So I told Koh Thong that my father was not being fed ...

Osama bin Laden:

And he told you to feed him.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup.

Osama bin Laden:

I would not want you in my organization, even if you offered to be a suicide bomber. This is for your benefit, or your Home Ministry would lock you up and throw away the key.

Lee Hsien Tau:

He chocked on the oatmeal. I was the one feeding him. My mother and sister took their own sweet time, but I rushed down to see the body. The cops said they wanted to interview me later. You must know how I felt then.

Osama bin Laden:

Go on.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My mother and youngest sister eventually came, and had my second sister in tow. My second sister pretended to call father. I made certain remarks, I can’t remember what, and they made off.

Osama bin Laden:

So ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was looking for the lifts, SGH is actually a labyrinth if you don’t know your way around, and came to a pillar. My second sister’s voice was asking if I was to be given something. From behind the pillar you cannot see the seats there nor who was occupying them. I should have stayed out of sight to hear more.

Osama bin Laden:

They cannot see you from behind the pillar?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No. I didn’t stay out of sight, and I chose to confide in Koh Thong.

Osama bin Laden:

Do you want to end the conversation herewith?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Please let me go on.

Osama bin Laden:

So did the cops come after you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Nope. They didn’t want to talk to me, but asked to talk to my youngest sister instead.

Osama bin Laden:

Did you ask her why?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Of course I did, but would she tell me if she knew the reason.

Osama bin Laden:

Did you ask for an autopsy? If one was done, they would have found out that he had nothing in him.

Lee Hsien Tau:

My eldest sister and brother in law made specific request that I not ask for one. She was a nurse once at the same hospital.

Osama bin Laden:

If you had not vacated your father’s flat, they couldn’t possibly use legal means ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

They would just have used the cops. They seem to have these guys on call.

Osama bin Laden:

You expect me to believe that. Lee Kuan Yew would swear on his deathbed that he has a clean government installed right now, if not forever.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Of course you’re right that they couldn’t possibly use legal means to evict me. Otherwise there wouldn’t be the need to buy the Tanglin Halt flat. My sole occupation of it would contravene then housing board regulations and underpaying property tax by half.

Osama bin Laden:

Maybe this Koh Thong didn’t know better.

Lee Hsien Tau:

This Koh Thong occupied the master bedroom at 71 Faber Green which is in his eldest son’s name. This son of his stays under the same roof and worked in the housing board as a branch head for twenty years. Are you telling me his son don’t know better either.

Osama bin Laden:

So you’re saying that the problem your father had earlier with the housing board emanated from Koh Thong?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I don’t know. But we can assume that even at Nile Rd, my mother was secretly communicating with Koh Thong. Boy, the damn hole must stink.

Osama bin Laden:

How would you know? Sorry, I couldn’t resist that.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I came out of that one. Look, you might as well say that my problem with the Chinese teacher emanated from Lee Kuan Yew? When people work behind the scenes, it becomes more difficult to find the truth, but if Lee Kuan Yew wants to, he can find things out, just like he did the pr-pilot.

Osama bin Laden:

Why can’t you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I’m prevented from doing so, unless I go to court. There are so many laws in place to stop me prying. Without resorting to deceit, I wouldn’t have known my father was suffering from Parkinson and dementia because his wife chose to hide it from me. The law doesn’t take into account such a possibility. That’s why my mother and Koh Thong had to be very careful not to raise my suspicion, when I still had some savings left.

Osama bin Laden:

But Koh Thong couldn’t keep himself from letting you know?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. He kept my correspondence to stop me from graduating too early.

Osama bin Laden:

So you finally connected your mother with Koh Thong?

Lee Hsien Tau:

You don’t have to be truly brilliant to connect them if they put it like that to you.

Osama bin Laden:

So Koh Thong cannot let you stay on at Tanglin Halt?

Lee Hsien Tau:

It has served its purpose. It didn’t matter what lock I installed. The place was legally his.

Osama bin Laden:

Where did you find your belongings dumped?

Lee Hsien Tau:

You know, when you need a flat from the government to stay in, dirty as you might expect such places to be, they would shove the regulations at you, and even if you were to qualify, you would have to follow the queue. But if you need such places for illegal activities, the keys seem so very much readily available.

Osama bin Laden:

So your belongings were dumped at an overpriced government rental flat?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Koh Thong paid for it. I didn’t. We don’t know for sure if he really came out with a single cent.

Osama bin Laden:

You probably could tell who took the credit for that deal?

Lee Hsien Tau:

And whereabouts he stays if you want to know.

Osama bin Laden:

That’s not important. What is important is your pocket suddenly sprung a leak.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I thought it was important to finish my studies first. But my mind was weighed down with my new found knowledge. And they made my finances leak faster by making me need to move from place to place. Sometimes I moved to evade them, but they knew where I was just the same. When I tried to make a stand ...

Osama bin Laden:

Let me guess. Cops made you move.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup.

Osama bin Laden:

Surely you went to the cops when they broke into the Tanglin Halt flat you were occupying then? That your mail was filched?

Lee Hsien Tau:

The cops said that if the mail was important to me and to no other, no crime was committed.

Osama bin Laden:

Which cop?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Ko Poh Koon. And the cop that said that Koh Thong was welcome to break into his own flat was shy to give his real name, so he called himself Jasvinder Singh.

Osama bin Laden:

You decided that offence was the best defense?

Lee Hsien Tau:

When I was staying at Kum Hing court, I went on a few counter-raids. But they are in a superior position. My counter-raids were counter-productive.

Osama bin Laden:

So you went for covert ops?

Lee Hsien Tau:

From the ICPAS notice board, I gathered that IRAS needed temp staff. So I tried my luck. I was led right to the fourteenth floor, if I remember correctly. The department was called ARC2 under a Dorothy Guan. Most of what I know came from there. I went in without much knowledge of Windows but had to learn fast and on my own. I knew I couldn’t be there for long.

Osama bin Laden:

Because the cops were after you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No. If I thought I was wanted, would I intentionally work in a government department?

Osama bin Laden:

They were digging up on Tang Liang Hong at that time.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I had no interest in Tang Liang Hong. I had specific targets of my own. Besides, we were told from the start, no checking on PAP and IRAS staff.

Osama bin Laden:

Were you given names you weren’t supposed to check? You can’t possibly know all the IRAS staff? Tang Liang Hong wasn’t PAP?

Lee Hsien Tau:

This is an opportunity of a lifetime. I know not to shoot myself in the foot. From here, you can verify if certain information were true, if somebody was fibbing to you. I went back to Jervois Rd just to find out the name of the company that Ow owned so I could connect to what I was looking for. And to connect to who owned the flat in between what was ours and the shop Ow owned. So on and so forth. Connections that somehow exploded exponentially that I felt I could use a few temp staff myself.

Osama bin Laden:

It all came to an end?

Lee Hsien Tau:

It had to. A couple of days into my temp job they’ve already planted one or two cops in my midst, I believe.

Osama bin Laden:

So why don’t they just arrest you there and then?

Lee Hsien Tau:

It would look better if I filched money, and not information. Money would be just another crime. Information would cause a scandal.

Osama bin Laden:

You were handling cash?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Mostly cheques, which I made sure were crossed, and cash which I referred to the counter staff. They tried to make me do a side line which I wisely also steered clear of.

Osama bin Laden:

So what did they arrest you for?

Lee Hsien Tau:

For my earlier counter-raids. One of the cops planted in my midst later drew a gun, was chased all over the island and finally shot himself when cornered, I believe.

Osama bin Laden:

Did you ever find what you were looking for at IRAS?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No, it was never captured in the computer system. Nor the computer system at the Land registry, when I checked later.

Osama bin Laden:

Another covert op?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Like hell. Would they allow two covert ops in a row? The information could be bought anyway if you are persuasive enough.

Osama bin Laden:

Why need to be persuasive? Is it illegal to buy the information?

Lee Hsien Tau:

No. But the information was not captured in the computer system. You are dealing with red tape here. You have to persuade them the information exists. Then you have to persuade them you have cause to buy them.

Osama bin Laden:

How did you suddenly know so much about property?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Met somebody behind bars called Solomon George that forged a signature to get a bank loan. We had many conversations together.

Osama bin Laden:

Didn’t they make sure you two never met?

Lee Hsien Tau:

yle="font-family:Verdana;font-size:82;color:blue;">You cannot arrange too many things without exposing your interest. Pure luck we were even sent to Changi together. Yard time was spent mostly sharing newspapers.

Osama bin Laden:

So you two arranged to meet when you came out?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Nope. He knew that when I came out, I would find out that he fibbed a little to me inside.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. That’s not important. So you arranged to meet with somebody else?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Nope. Somebody did try for 23 days to program me to meet him when I got out, but disappeared from prison after frustrating himself.

Osama bin Laden:

You were not programmable? Why would people bother?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I still hadn’t exhausted my savings; therefore I presented a clear and present danger.

Osama bin Laden:

This is definitively more interesting than 911. You are a dead man.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I am a walking shell now. There is not much difference between me and a dead man. What do I care?

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So Solomon George told you to go to the Land registry. Did you find what you were looking for?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I told you the information wasn’t captured in the computer system. Not at IRAS, and not at the Land registry.

Osama bin Laden:

OK. So Solomon George wasn’t available for a free consultation. So what made you continue digging? Don’t you ever give up?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Look, they never let up chasing me around the island trying to exhaust me financially. I am amply persuaded to try to understand why.

Osama bin Laden:

You ever involve yourself in politics. You said you were a nail that stood up.

Lee Hsien Tau:

Up to now, I am not that type of nail. I’ve never crossed a PAP politician.

Osama bin Laden:

So you got your information when?

Lee Hsien Tau:

2000 at the Land registry, after chatting with a nice young lady. I think it proper now to detail where I’ve moved around the past ten years.

Osama bin Laden:

OK.

Lee Hsien Tau:

45 Tanglin Halt Rd #09-283 (1 yr) 1995/6
106 Commonwealth Crescent #06-196 (2 day) 1996
Hotel Strand (1 month) 1996 June
Budget Stay (2 wk) 1996
Kum Hing Court, Tomlinson Rd (2 month) 1996
Hotel Strand (3 wk) 1996 Dec
College Green, Dunearn Close (3 month) 1997
Changi Prison (6 month) 1997
Budget Stay (2 wk) 1997
9 Selegie House #06-22 (9 month) 1998
32 Belimbing Avenue (18 month) 1998/2000
7 Puay Hee Avenue (3 month) 2000
(14th floor) Lock Cho Apartments, Jalan Raja Udang (2 day) 2000
543 Woodlands Drive 16 #03-03 (3 month) 2000
398H River Valley Rd (1 wk) 2000
Queenstown Remand (6 month) 2000/2001
398H River Valley Rd (10 month) 2001
2 Delta Avenue #09-44 (6 month) 2002
91 Tiong Bahru Rd #06-22 (2 wk) 2002
Hotel Amber (2 day) 2002
(16th floor) 151E King’s Rd (1 month) 2002
66 Marine Drive #03-190 (14 month) 2002/3

Osama bin Laden:

Some of the addresses are not complete.

Lee Hsien Tau:

What do you expect? Sometimes I don’t get to stay more than a few days. Sometimes I don’t get my mail, so I don’t remember.

Osama bin Laden:

So you passed your studies at?

Lee Hsien Tau:

32 Belimbing Avenue. Where my savings also ran out.

Osama bin Laden:

So you sought work with?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Teo Eng Tian & Co. I first went to Teo Eng Tian & Co when I was at Kum Hing Court. Answered an ad. Worked there about a month.

Osama bin Laden:

You went back there?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Yup. Called up begging for a job. Teo Eng Tian has since gone all holy. Christian stuff all over his office. Christian songs playing. Made it a condition that I attended church with him or else no work. Baptized me with holy water and all that.

Osama bin Laden:

Something strange going on?

Lee Hsien Tau:

The only familiar faces now were the boss and his wife, Rani, who was now the receptionist, and the courier guy. The receptionist knows a lot about the boss, and told me things such as that boss was someway or other related to Chiam See Tong and so on.

Osama bin Laden:

You were making calls to your mother?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Not from the office. I wasn’t making nuisance calls as such. My mother won’t talk to me. But sometimes, she couldn’t resist the urge to boast ...

Osama bin Laden:

But you were receiving nuisance calls at the office?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was employed on $50 a day typing work, and tasked to pick up the phone should the receptionist somehow not do so. I picked up two calls claiming that nuisance calls were made from the office and lots more silent calls after that. The lady from fifth floor doing company secretarial work picked up a couple of the calls on my behalf and made noises into the phone. Next thing I know, the boss’s secretary was claiming that her insurance friend was complaining to her about hearing strange noises when he called up. This was nuisance calls war.

Osama bin Laden:

This is not important.

Lee Hsien Tau:

I took a day off without asking, went to the Land registry and chatted with a nice young lady for two hours.

Osama bin Laden:

Where you finally found what you were looking for?

Lee Hsien Tau:

The lawyer acting for my father made a mess of the forgery.

Osama bin Laden:

So back at the office?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I sensed what was to come. I had been there eight months. One Friday, the receptionist and courier guy were told to stay behind when we all left the office. I contacted the receptionist over the weekend, and she said she was fired. I got the pink slip Monday morning.

Osama bin Laden:

They were throwing intelligence operatives at you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Before I passed everything I could sit for, the intelligence operatives made contact at ICPAS. The first one I can identify ...

Osama bin Laden:

When she made a mistake she couldn’t cover?

Lee Hsien Tau:

They don’t have a tag identifying themselves as intelligence operatives. Her name was Yong Shie Kim. My things were moved to the first governmental rental flat by Koh Thong and company. Yong Shie Kim supplied me another operative whose face looked a bit like Yeo Chow Tong to help in my move to the hotel and then like in the spy movies, he then no longer answered to pager or phone number.

Osama bin Laden:

What mistake did she make?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I was never taken to task for my activities at IRAS. The cop that did his duty for my counter-raids avoided that altogether. You know, when I was at IRAS, I did my fair share of actual work. That meant I had to make more use of the printer than could have been avoided. The cop wasn’t blind. He went through my stuff at College Green.

Osama bin Laden:

You told him your stuff was at College Green?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Which meant the next time I was in jail, I kept my mouth shut. Not that they won’t know then. But they have to pretend they don’t know.

Osama bin Laden:

What mistake did Yong Shie Kim make?

Lee Hsien Tau:

She remarked I made nuisance calls from IRAS.

Osama bin Laden:

They threw another intelligence operative at you?

Lee Hsien Tau:

He probably wasn’t number two. He is a Filipino called Rolando Ontal Gacasan. He probably stays at Toa Payoh. When I was studying no more, intelligence operatives have to make contact at my place of stay. Rolando had to pretend to move-in. He seemed friendly and very hardworking.

Osama bin Laden:

How did he give himself away?

Lee Hsien Tau:

That was much later. When I was kicked out of Belimbing Avenue, Rolando was still there. I moved to Puay Hee Avenue. From there I frequently walked to Belimbing Avenue. The owners at Puay Hee were Hindus. Same like the receptionist. But they talked more Indian than English, which was my only language, unless you consider a bit of conversational Mandarin as qualifying ...

Osama bin Laden:

This is not important.

Lee Hsien Tau:

This is important. When the name Koh Thong came up in conversation between Hindu mother and daughter, the name Koh Thong has no Hindu equivalent. I set a simple door trap, the owners tried to come into my room in the night, I made a fuss about it, and then I had to move again. The daughter was following instructions written on a sheet of foolscap. The first instruction said to deduct $50 off my deposit. She prevented me from seeing the rest.

Osama bin Laden:

You went to engage the services of Chiam & Co?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I shouldn’t have, after what was said to me by the receptionist, but I couldn’t find another willing lawyer.

Osama bin Laden:

When was that?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Just before I had to move from Puay Hee Avenue, I found temp work at Texas Instruments. Because I also sent a lot of e-mail to Lee Kuan Yew, I had to show up at CPIB where the lady officer couldn’t make me sweat. Because the CPIB didn’t want to do anything, because the cops didn’t want to do anything, because the law society didn’t want to do anything, I had to take what Chiam & Co offered.

Osama bin Laden:

Which was a cull de sac move intended to stall?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Something else was being planned by Koh Thong. Rolando introduced me to another Filipino operative; a lady that they claimed was staying at Woodlands Drive 16. A maid. I did ask why a maid should be staying on her own but, Rolando told me not to ask too many questions. The maid didn’t come home after the first few days.

Osama bin Laden:

So you got suspicious?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I couldn’t avoid getting suspicious. Pictures of me in my room were being couriered to Texas Instruments every lunch time for about two weeks.

Osama bin Laden:

So you moved out of there pronto?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I don’t have much money, I couldn’t get a refund. I moved out as quickly as I could. As would be expected, the lady operative abandoned her mobile phone numbers. Rolando asked me through e-mail why I never return the keys to the Woodlands Drive place. I called him a double-agent.

Osama bin Laden:

So he went un-contactable. What was Koh Thong planning?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Chiam & Co pretended to help me. That was a stalling move. A stalling move requires a convenient way out.

Osama bin Laden:

You expect me to believe Chiam See Tong is involved in all this?

Lee Hsien Tau:

IRAS' database was useless in many respects. You cannot expect me to try my luck at NRO? They don’t take temp staff over 30 anymore. Not at the NRO anyway.

Osama bin Laden:

So what was the convenient way out?

Lee Hsien Tau:

Koh Thong’s son went to the cops claiming that the e-mails I sent him threatened his life. His father got his lawyer to try to nullify the civil action Chiam & Co had helped me file.

Osama bin Laden:

This is a little elaborate isn’t it? You don’t have much of a war chest to speak of? Why on earth couldn’t they just laugh the whole thing off over a few kegs of beer? If Chiam & Co misled you what could you do? The cops not going to do anything, the law society not going to do anything, the court’s not going to do anything, no lawyer’s going to do anything ...

Lee Hsien Tau:

Make me kind of regret u-turning from Cardiff?

Osama bin Laden:

Where were you arrested?

Lee Hsien Tau:

I went to the airport cargo terminal for an interview. Texas Instruments told me my services were no longer required.

Osama bin Laden:

So you pleaded guilty?

Lee Hsien Tau:

They were hoping I did. Chiam would have just claimed I couldn’t keep myself out of jail. He actually did mouth this lame excuse at the end.

There was no Grant of Probate or Grant of Letters of Administration of the Estate of Koh Wing Chye. An allegedly valid Will would only be produced by his wife, Lim Swee Ying, if she were compelled by a Court. Meanwhile, she exhausted all underhand means available to avoid being brought to Court. The man died destitute, his property sold a couple of months ahead, starved into submission. Who you take for a wife is very important. If you marry a whore, you'd bet she'll take care of you in your later years.

This was probably the only instance Chiam See Tong really represented me. When this letter went out, the possible counter-parties to a lawsuit were alerted, and Chiam See Tong was bought over.

Yap Kok Kiong is a lawyer who doesn't really care how he comes by his money. He has been let off by the Law Society of Singapore a couple of times. It's always useful to network. Naturally, he kept an eye blind to the fraud and forgery committed by his erstwhile partner in his law firm, Hoo Sheau Farn. One could even suspect he approved going by the number of times he was hauled in front of the Law Society Disciplinary Committee. Maybe he didn't see that there could be any harm with Hoo Sheau Peng headed for the Court Bench.

What was so damned important about the letter from K. K. Yap & Partners were the attachments. It was necessary to buy Chiam See Tong over straight away because the signatures on the acknowledgements of receipt of settlement arising over the sale of property differed from those on the transfer document, where lawyer Hoo Sheau Farn bore witness, even though both were allegedly signed on the same day of 8th of December, 1994. Both sets of signatures also differed from Koh Wing Chye's usual. The man had a simple signature, but he was consistent, and he never changed it over the years.

Hoo Sheau Farn. The bitch has a sister sitting on the Court Bench.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in November 1961.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in June 1991.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in August 1991.

Koh Wing Chye was diagnosed with senile dementia and Parkinsonism in October 1994, just before the sale of his property in December 1994. He was at the mercy of his wife. She wanted him out of hospital the same day he was admitted. She started starving him soon after his property was sold. I tried to feed him when I realised his wife wasn't. He choked almost straight away. He died before morning could break on 31st of January 1995. The man never saw his money.

This was what Lim Swee Ying bought with some of her ill-gotten gains.

This is what the murder was all about. Note the free gift to Koh Cheong Soon in November 1996, her love-child with Koh Thong.

The buyer was Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam, the next door neighbour from 10-F Jervois Road.

In one short year, Ow Koon Thiam made close to half a million dollars. Were there any prior arrangements between him and Lim Swee Ying?

When I sent a barrage of e-mails to Lee Kuan Yew, the CPIB called me over. During the interview I was accused of harassing the Old Fart, but I kept a straight face. Then I was shown a Will, purportedly of Koh Wing Chye's, by Miss Tracy Lai of the CPIB, but I was denied a copy. After that, I was dismissed. The Will was purportedly made at Irene Ng Lee Ling & Co. Always use a retiring lawyer's name when you fake a Will.

The CPIB involved in a cover-up?

Cannot get hold of the Will, therefore don't know who to sue, and therefore any-oh-how sue? Not according to Chan Fook Meng whom I consulted much later. What Chiam See Tong said to me was he didn't want to appear in the case sheet, so he'll help me sue but in my own name. What he meant to do was to lead me by the nose. Never use a lawyer who doesn't want to appear in the case sheet.

Koh Thong actually paid me $500 x 12 = $6,000 by cheque. I have recovered cheques totalling $4,500.

Koh Thong wasn't a concerned uncle as he alleged. For all my life until 1992, I never saw his fuck face. As I've always understood, this guy wasn't on speaking terms with Koh Wing Chye. But from 1992 to 1994 he visited Koh Wing Chye occasionally. This I believed was engineered by Lim Swee Ying. How Mrs Koh Wing Chye got so close to Koh Thong is a mystery to me. Lim Swee Ying needed to hand over the sold property. She initially tried to get rid of me by calling Wong Kan Seng's goons who then handed me to the military police for AWOL. This didn't work out when the C.O. of the reservist unit I was attached to knew me by face, and offered to release me for a $75 fine. So Koh Thong had to show his hand to find me accomodation. He actually went out of his way and bought a 2-room flat just to get me to move. Why would a man do something like that for somebody else's wife that he apparently wasn't too close to, unless there was something going on behind appearances. And I didn't ask Koh Thong for money. He gave me more than the $500 x 5 or 6 <= $3,000 he claimed. There's proof of at least $4,500.

Koh Thong claimed I stayed in his 2-room flat for 5 or 6 months. I actually stayed there from March 1995 to February 1996. My mail had to be addressed to his son, Koh Chong Huat's semi-detached property where Koh Thong stayed, and driven over to the flat from time to time. After the first month, there was zilch. That was when I started smelling a rat. Koh Thong initially alleged $166,666 from the sale of Koh Wing Chye's property was bequeathed to me, hence the $500 x 12 = $6,000 monthly interest. I finally realised Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying planned together to give me nothing. When a neighbour told me someone was accessing the flat when I was out, I added locks of my own. Koh Thong wanted the flat back, but wouldn't give me my $166,666 he allegedly was holding. Never trust somebody who pops up out of nowhere, even if he's rich, for he could be screwing your mother. Koh Chong Huat was HDB Bukit Merah Branch Head, and Koh Thong knew he was breaking then HDB rules by not living in his flat. In February 1996, when he failed to get me to leave by cutting off the water and electricity to the flat, he broke his way in, and moved my belongings to a HDB rental flat at Commonwealth Crescent. I can't guess how he managed to get hold of a HDB rental flat for such a purpose. Sure I took the law into my own hands. Who wouldn't under such circumstances, especially when Wong Kan Seng's goons are as corrupt as their boss. The I/O that prosecuted me was only interested in nailing me. The I/O even went so far as sending me to IMH for psychiatric evaluation. In February 2007, Ko Poh Koon finally landed in Court on 10 counts of corruption and two counts of cheating, for which he was fined $1,500. I may have been jailed 4 months in 1997, but my conduct was better than Wong Kan Seng's 27-year veteran goon, and I dare say, better than the Old Fart himself.

Koh Thong spent $56,000 to buy a 2-room flat in November 1994, preparing to help Lim Swee Ying accomodate me.

The 2-room flat was sold after the minimum required 3 years. Once the objective was achieved, it was surplus to requirement.

I managed to get into IRAS to check on Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying et al. You can actually check on T.T. Durai, Shi Ming Yi, or even the Old Fart himself. Of course you might get yourself jail-time checking the Old Fart.

You look at this information and the next, and you'd say to yourself, there's no way Koh Thong or Koh Hoon Yee would need a 2-room flat, just as would Shi Ming Yi.

Tan Hui Huang, Mrs Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam departed on 21st July 2008 from cancer.

Koh Wing Chye was murdered by Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying et al. Did I ever mention Koh Siow Kin is a whore? Well, her husband, Tan Kian Seng is no better. That's not to say Koh Siow Ling, Koh Siew Mei and Koh Siew Lee are excluded. It's like Macbeth and the famous witches. Tan Zhi Ming died in an untimely accident; see next.

Never think karma won't come and get you. This was pure evil 17-years in the making.

Blame his parents for the way he went?

Every time I mention the Will, trouble starts to stalk me.

Old Fart has his summary judgement. But that is not available to the rank and file. Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying cannot honestly present themselves in Court. So they had Koh Chong Huat make me a wanted man. This is the classic Justice Bao and Water Margin story-line. Only thing is what we have is a Kangaroo Court.

Oum Prakash Singh is another Wong Kan Seng's goon.

When summary judgement is not available to you, and you cannot present yourself in Court, make him a wanted man. Better still, make him a wanted mad man. Destroy him altogether. This is more advanced than in Justice Bao's time where there was no mental asylum.

Stalk him all over the island, so he has no fixed place of abode, so he can't present his case in Court.

Yik Tze Kong is a corrupt lawyer. He offered me a copy of the Will, knowing I was a wanted man. And he wanted my address.

Yik Tze Kong went one better. Who said Yik Tze Kong cannot try a summary judgement knowing I was a wanted man.

Of course Yik Tze Kong tried a summary judgement based on a technicality. Order 6, Rule 2(f) of the Rules of Court says if you have no fixed place of abode, you can't sue anybody even if your life depends on it. Especially if you are also a wanted man.

This is Chiam See Tong leading me by the nose. By then I was in remand. I can't file a reply whilst in remand. He then never ever meant to move the case further than this. In fact he waited for it to lapse.

I was sentenced on 26th February, 2001 with a fine of $6,000, in default, 30 plus days jail-time. When I was coming out of jail was known. Lim Swee Ying changed her lawyer on 28th February, 2001. Guess why? It's the Will all over again.

Yik Tze Kong never proceeded with the summary judgement once I was in remand. It would abort the criminal case. Even for a Kangaroo Court, that would be too obvious.

Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam tried to silence me. It didn't work.

adventure in never-ever-land

2010-10-08T22:24:00.001+08:00

why 45 Tanglin Halt Road #09-283 was purpose bought

2010-09-08T22:24:00.000+08:00

Residential property owners @ Dec '94

45 Tanglin Halt Road #09-283

Koh Hoon Yee

Koh Thong

18 West Coast Park #03-03

Koh Chong Huat

Koh Hoon Yee

Yeo Mei Kuen

22 Surrey Road #03-04

Koh Hoon Yee

Phoon Cho Kuan

Yeo Mei Kuen

25 Faber Park

Koh Chong Huat

Koh Hoon Yee

Koh Chong Joo

22H Kim Tian Road

Koh Chong Huat

Koh Hoon Yee

66 Eng Watt Street #03-08

Koh Hoon Yee

20 West Coast Park #02-02

Koh Chong Joo

38 Grove Drive

Koh Chong Joo

52 Coronation Road West #03-03

Koh Chong Huat

Koh Chong Joo

Thian Toa Yong

Thian Toh Meng

360 Pasir Panjang Road #03-09

Koh Chong Huat

Koh Chong Joo

Thian Toa Yong

Thian Toh Meng

71 Faber Green

Koh Chong Huat

177 Hillcrest Road

Koh Chong Huat

3C Ridley Park #05-01

Koh Chong Huat

Yeo Mei Kuen

not all defamation suits end in capitulation

2010-08-08T16:25:00.002+08:00

Singapore's Home Ministry and Judicial Apparatchik made freaking jackasses

2010-07-08T17:47:00.000+08:00

Dr Chee Soon Juan has already said it, and got $6,000 plus a day in the slammer (altogether a week in lieu) for it. So would I dare mouth it too? Why not? It's already gotten too bloody obvious for all and sundry except the most insistently thick skinned to ignore. The judicial apparatchik and the whole system of rule of law in Singapore can no longer be deemed to be impartial and independent. Familial relationships, networking, wealth, and even ethnic origin, has so colored the concept of equal justice for all to such an extent that assertions such as "nobody can be allowed to swing their arm save short of someone else's nose" turn rancid the second it leaves Wong Kan Seng's lips. Absolute power and corruption are such moot bedfellows.

You don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to be able to reason, when double murders are committed, one after the other, with a relatively short lapse of time in between, by one and the same person, that even if it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt the first murder was pre-meditated, the second can but only be deemed to be, unless it can be proven that it was committed with a weapon of mass destruction, the murderer had genocidal tendencies, or else transforms into something uncannily green and insurmountably strong like the HULK when provoked. In other words, the motivation for the second murder is pivotal in determining whether pre-meditation can conceivably be construed for both. The burden should then be on the defense to positively prove lack of motive for the second murder in the backdrop of the first (including the motive of silencing a witness that could produce a potentially damning 'frontline' insight into the initial murder). The defense could of course then attempt to allude to the possibility that the murders may not have been committed by one and the same person. Lightning has been known to strike twice, but in such dastardly close timing and proximity? I'll buy that argument when I win Lotto America.

Two double murder trials involving Singapore and Australia have ended, pending appeals. The following reports were lifted off two blogs, here and here where I also left comments.

CNA
Friday, August 04, 2006
Australian prosecutor seeks two life sentences for Tiwary's double murder

Australian prosecutors have asked the Sydney Supreme Court to sentence 27-year-old Singaporean Ram Tiwary to spend the rest of his life behind bars for the double murder of his two Singaporean flat mates.

Sentencing submissions were heard on Thursday and the Supreme Court will hand down Tiwary's sentence later this year.

Tiwary had been convicted of bludgeoning to death his two flat mates - fellow Singaporeans Tan Poh Chan and Tay Chow Lyang.

All three men had shared an apartment near the University of New South Wales, where they were students.

Crown Prosecutor Tim Hoyle asked the court to sentence Tiwary to two concurrent life sentences without parole.

But defense lawyer Peter Doyle argued for a shorter 30-year jail sentence.

He stressed that Tiwary had no previous convictions and was a decent young man till the double murder in September 2003.

While the judge agreed that the murders "came out of the blue", he had serious reservations about Tiwary's character.

Foreshadowing a harsh sentence, the judge, Justice Michael Adams, made it clear that he viewed Tiwary as a dangerous man.

He described the two murders as acts of extreme wickedness and it followed that the perpetrator was an extremely wicked man.

The judge also noted that Tiwary had waited before committing the second murder, suggesting a degree of pre-meditation.

Regardless of the sentence handed down, defense sources say Tiwary plans to appeal his conviction.

ST June 30, 2006
Prosecution gets what it asked for in McCrea case
By Chong Chee Kin

THE Michael McCrea case is special, almost as special as the relationship he shared with the man he killed.

First, the Australian government asked the Singapore Government to promise it will not execute McCrea if he is extradited. Then it became apparent that he would not have faced the gallows anyway, since the charges brought against him would not have led to an execution on conviction.

McCrea's lawyer Kelvin Lim dismissed the suggestion that the charges were reduced because of the Government's promise to Australia. He insists that the facts support his argument that McCrea did not commit murder.

'It's quite clear that it is not murder. How can it be murder when there was a sudden and grave provocation from the victims? McCrea was attacked and hit back in self-defense,' he said.

Truth be told, I was remanded at IMH twice (two and three weeks) for observation. The shrinks there have condemned me as a paranoid schizophrenic, the most serious type there is (but not requiring institutionalization nor supervision? and with me simply refusing to take medication? maybe they prefer me to dig my own grave and save the expense to keep me alive?), that I probably see a murder in every death. This can hardly be true. I rarely pay attention to murder reports, double murders included. I hardly read the papers anymore. It was only when the trial of Michael McCrea ended, and I read the reference to it on Mr Wang's blog, and the ridiculous ST report that it irked. But it was the guilty verdict pronounced on Ram Puneet Tiwary that got the 'ink' flowing. So the reports above and below are actually new to me. In my not too humble opinion, if IMH and Wong Kan Seng would condescend to allow me to hold any form of opinion, double murders are open and shut cases, that is, unless I win Lotto America. Pre-meditation does not simply impute intent and planning. Pre-meditation includes fudging the details to make it possible to mount a credible defense when the case eventually goes to trial, and (sometimes) the disposure of the body. I'll try my level best to forego direct local media takes, and lift only from blog scoops and independent newscasts. At least what I managed to find.

(no spell-checks hereafter)

By Chris Summers
BBC News Online

A wealthy British businessman in Australia is fighting extradition to Singapore where he could face the death penalty if convicted of a bizarre double murder.

Michael McCrea, 44, from Nottingham, left his luxury apartment in Singapore's Balmoral Park district in January only days after his chauffeur, Kho Nai Guan, 46, and a Chinese woman known only as Miss Susan were found strangled.

Their decomposing bodies were found in a car parked in Orchard Towers, a seedy corner of Singapore popular among American sailors trawling for Thai and Filipino prostitutes.

Whoever killed them left dried flowers and other love tokens around the body of the woman, who is believed to be an illegal immigrant and was Mr Kho's girlfriend.

Straits Times reporter Chong Chee Kin said love letters, a champagne glass and a corkscrew were among the items found in the car.

Singapore says it has a prima facie case against Mr McCrea, a successful investment adviser and tax expert who was arrested in Melbourne in May along with his personal assistant Audrey Ong, 22.

But Mr McCrea has protested his innocence and has written to an Australian newspaper reporter giving his version of events.

Sue Hewitt, a reporter with the Sunday Herald Sun, told BBC News Online: "He said his chauffeur was involved with the Triads (Chinese organised criminals) and had gambling debts.

"He said he was there with Miss Ong when there was a knock at the door and two men with Samurai swords came in and chopped him on the head and hand."

She said: "He said he passed out in a pool of blood and when he came to the men had taken Mr Kho and his Chinese girlfriend."

Ms Hewitt said: "According to the prison authorities he does have injuries which are consistent with that claim."

Singapore has one of the highest per capita rates number of executions in the world with around 25 people a year being hanged for murder or drug trafficking.

The government has promised Australia it will waive the death penalty if Mr McCrea is returned and convicted.

But his solicitor, Erskine Rodan, said the Singapore government was not able to guarantee this undertaking because the judiciary was independent.

Mr Rodan said: "In the past the president has commuted some death sentences but never in a case like this."

He said it was the first time Singapore had sought to extradite a foreigner for trial on a capital murder charge and he said he had grave misgivings about Singapore's undertaking not to impose a death penalty.

Mr McCrea and Miss Ong face a four-day extradition hearing in Melbourne in November.

Mr McCrea was arrested when police attended a domestic dispute at his home in Melbourne, where he lived with his Australian wife, Brunetta, who is five months pregnant, and his son Callum, who is three.

They checked his passport and then discovered he was wanted in Singapore.

Mr McCrea, who was known in Singapore as Mike Townsend, ran a company called April Investments which helped many British and Australian expatriates with their tax problems.

The publisher of The Expat magazine, in which he advertised, said Mr McCrea was appealing to the 100,000 British, American and Australian expatriates who work in Singapore.

Chris Cheney said: "He was advising people on how to reduce their tax exposure when they returned home."

Because many expats receive tax-free salaries and other benefits, they often face large tax bills when they move back to their home countries.

Mr McCrea, a former life assurance salesman in Nottingham who moved to the Far East in the 1980s, advised clients on how to use offshore accounts to avoid tax.

Mr Cheney said there was no suggestion Mr McCrea was doing anything illegal.

Australian law will not allow anyone - whether or not they are an Australian citizen - to be extradited if they face the death penalty.

Mr McCrea's barrister Greg Hughan told BBC News Online: "We are opposing the extradition application. In fact we are busting for a fight."

He said: "Mr McCrea is a British citizen, originally from the Nottingham area, and he says he wants to go back to Britain."

Mr Rodan said his client, who was being held in Port Phillip prison near Melbourne, was "tense and agitated" as he waited to learn his fate.

The last time a British citizen was executed in Singapore was in 1996, when Londoner John Scripps was hanged for the murder of a South African engineer.

By Chris Summers
BBC News Online

A British businessman facing extradition to Singapore for a double murder has written to BBC News Online from jail in Australia to protest his innocence.

"There is a lynch mob waiting for me in Singapore," writes British businessman Michael McCrea in a letter from his Australian prison cell.

Mr McCrea, 44, a Falklands War veteran from Nottingham, is living through a nightmare and sees no end in sight.

He denies murdering two people in Singapore - one of whom was not only a Triad but also a member of the ruling People's Action Party - and is terrified of being extradited back there to stand trial.

Mr McCrea said he had received "zero help" from the British High Commission in Melbourne and had no response to a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

He faces an extradition hearing on 12 November and he fears Australia will believe Singapore's assurances about not executing him if he is found guilty.

Mr McCrea writes from his cell in Port Philip prison near Melbourne: "The trial is already a foregone conclusion...I need some help. I need public opinion behind me.

"How can a British citizen be sent to a Third World country which still carries the death penalty on two charges of homicide when the only mandatory punishment is death."

Ten months ago Mr McCrea was living a life of luxury in Singapore, running a successful business and looking forward to a growing family.

But everything changed one night in January when there was a knock at the door of his luxury apartment in Singapore's Balmoral Park district.

Mr McCrea said he was attacked with a cleaver - receiving severe injuries to his head and hand - and left for dead.

When he recovered consciousness he found his chauffeur, Kho Nai Guan, 46, and the chauffeur's Chinese girlfriend were missing.

They were later found strangled in the Daewoo Chairman limousine which Mr Kho used to chauffeur around Mr McCrea.

Their decomposing bodies were found in a car parked in Orchard Towers, a seedy corner of otherwise squeaky-clean Singapore.

Australian Philip Stearman, who shared a cell with Mr McCrea for several months after his arrest in May this year, said he was a "bloody nice guy" who was being framed for a crime he did not commit.

He said Mr McCrea had wounds - included a four-inch gash on his forehead - which were consistent with his story.

Timetable
1 Jan 2002: McCrea says he was attacked by Triads who took away Mr Guan
5 Jan: Mr McCrea, with Miss Ong, flies to London for medical treatment
7 Jan: The bodies of Mr Guan and his girlfriend found
29 May: Mr McCrea arrested in Melbourne
12 Nov: Mr McCrea faces extradition hearing

Mr Stearman, speaking from his home in the Australian outback, said: "Never mind the trial, he won't last 15 minutes in a Singapore jail.

"The Singapore newspapers have accused him of being a rapist, a conman, a tax fraud, a woman basher and one of the victims was a Triad.

"Gang members in jail will have read the papers just like everyone else and they think he has killed one of their own. If he is sent back to Singapore you may as well send flowers."

He said he understood Mr McCrea's co-accused Audrey Ong had changed her initial statement - which had supported his version of events - after the Singaporean Government allowed her relatives to visit her in Australia.

Mr Stearman said: "I really feel sorry for him. I know when someone is being set up and he has been set up a treat."

He said Mr McCrea had only learned after Guan's death that he was a Triad who owed thousands of pounds in gambling debts to other gangsters and also took a synthetic drug called ice.

"Mick told me he gave Guan a S$26,000 Christmas bonus only a few days before all this happened," said Mr Stearman.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman told BBC News Online: "Our consular office are in contact with him and his next of kin, his spouse."

She said: "We cannot intervene in the extradition. It is a matter between Singapore and Australia. We have no locus to intervene.

"Our interest is to ensure that he has proper legal representation and is properly looked after in prison."

Steven Jacobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said that while Singapore's criminal justice system was generally considered fair it did have a record of pursuing political enemies of the ruling party.

ABC Local Radio
Federal Government faces tough extradition decision
PM Archive - Tuesday, 15 July , 2003 18:18:00
Reporter: Natasha Simpson

TANYA NOLAN: The Federal Government is facing a sensitive decision on whether to extradite a man to Singapore, which lawyers fear could result in his death.

British national Michael McCrea is wanted over a double-murder, and his lawyers believe Singaporean Government assurances he won't be executed, aren't legally enforceable.

They want the Australian Government to ensure Mr McCrea will have time to appeal if his extradition is ordered. But the Attorney-General's office has told them there'll be no grace period.

NATASHA SIMPSON: Michael McCrea was working in Singapore when his chauffer and the driver's girlfriend were found murdered. The British expat has strenuously denied killing them but after the incident he fled to Melbourne, where his wife and two children live, and was detained over visa irregularities.

Late last year, a Melbourne Magistrate found McCrae was eligible for extradition but Justice Minister Chris Ellison has to approve his return to Singapore. The double-murder charge carries a mandatory death sentence and Australian policy prohibits the extradition of someone facing a capital offence.

While the Singaporean Government has given an undertaking McCrae won't be executed, his lawyer, John Maitland, has shown ABC News constitutional advice suggesting his client could still be sent to his death.

JOHN MAITLAND: We have had advice from a Queen's Counsel here in Melbourne, Mr Gerry Nash, and it's backed up by some leading academics in Singapore that by operation of the Singapore Constitution, no undertaking or assurance can provide a watertight undertaking.

In other words, the assurance - we haven't even received an undertaking - the assurance from the Government of Singapore would not guarantee to either our government or Mr McCrae that he would not have the death penalty carried out.

NATASHA SIMPSON: It's advice the President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O'Gorman says the Government should take very seriously.

TERRY O'GORMAN: When Australia is likely to be party to an extradition which has a high probability of someone being put to death in another country, the Australian Government has to proceed extremely carefully, and very much with a focus on our long-standing policy of not extraditing people to countries where the death penalty is likely.

NATASHA SIMPSON: Justice Minister Chris Ellison says he's waiting for advice on the new information before him.

CHRIS ELLISON: Australia has no reason to doubt that a country like Singapore would not stick to its word, and we've had undertakings in the past from countries who have abided by them. We have not had any experience where an undertaking has not been adhered to be another country.

NATASHA SIMPSON: McCrae's legal team fears if an extradition warrant is signed, Singaporean authorities will act before any appeal can be considered and John Maitland says advice from the Attorney-General's office indicates there won't be a period of grace for legal intervention to stop them.

JOHN MAITLAND: What concerns us is that if in fact a decision went against Mr McCrae the Singapore authorities, if they have a member here in Melbourne, could jump in their hired car, go out to the jail with a warrant for the release of Mr McCrae and have him bundled on a Singapore Airlines jet off to what we would say is an unfair trial in the gallows without affording Mr McCrae any time to have the court review the minister's decision, which could in fact be quite wrong.

NATASHA SIMPSON: Mr Maitland maintains if his client is sent anywhere, he should be deported to Britain for visa offences.

The British High Commission says it can't intervene in the process, but if Mr McCrae is deported to England, the British Government would seek absolute assurances from Singaporean authorities that he wouldn't face capital or corporal punishment if he was sent back to Singapore, assurances they would likely accept.

TANYA NOLAN: Natasha Simpson with that report, and there'll be more on that story in ABC TV news at seven o'clock.

Yawning_Bread

The way things are going, 2005 may be the year of murder trials and the death penalty. There have been a number of cases raising troubling questions.

PP vs Took Leng How
On 26 August 2005, Took Leng How was sentenced to death for the murder of 8-year-old Huang Na on 10 October 2004. Took was a vegetable packer at a wholesale market and was acquainted with Huang Na's mother, as the woman had once worked there. The girl herself knew Took well and they often played together.

That fateful week, the mother, Huang Shuying, 27, was back in China. She had left Huang Na in the care of her flatmate Li Xiuqin, another Chinese national. Around midday on 10 October 2004, Li allowed Huang Na to go out to make a phone call to her mother, but that was the last she saw of the girl. Apparently, Took met her and they played together in a storeroom where he worked, and where she was killed.

What troubled me was that motive had not been established, without which it seemed unwise to assume that the killing had been pre-planned. Nor was there any evidence that Took had taken steps to plan for the murder, such as procuring a weapon in advance. The judge, Lai Kew Chai, said in his verdict,

56 ....In reaching such a conclusion, I make no finding with regards to whether the accused had in fact sexually assaulted the deceased. Discovering the motive of the killing is not essential to a finding that the accused had indeed caused the death of the deceased and had committed murder.

The defence had raised this point about there being no demonstrable motive, and instead argued that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia. Dr Nagulendran was the expert witness for the defence. However, the judge said,

66 ....The difficulty with Dr Nagulendran’s finding in this respect is that it pre-supposed the killing to be motiveless and unplanned. I am unsure of what the accused’s motives might be, but that does not mean that his acts were motiveless. Bearing in mind that the burden is on the Defence to prove diminished responsibility, if the Defence so wishes to rely on the lack of motive as an indication that the accused was mentally abnormal, it follows that the Defence must positively prove the lack of motive. This it had not done.

Is this reasonable? How can one positively prove the negative?

Not only does Singapore law mandate capital punishment upon conviction for murder, with no discretion in sentencing being allowed to the trial judges, what constitutes murder may be broader than the layman thinks. Any act that causes another's death is murder, whether or not motive is established, whether or not pre-planned, though at that very moment, there has to be intent to cause death, or the action should be such that it can reasonably be expected to cause death.

There are, in our Penal Code, 7 exceptions under which an accused can be convicted of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", instead of simple murder. These generally relate to self-defence, passion or mental impairment. The penalty is 10 years to life, with the possibility of caning added.

The way the law has been worded, the 7 exceptions are subsidiary to the simple offence of murder. This means that the prosecution need only prove that you have killed, and by default you will get the death penalty. It is then up to the defence to prove that one of the 7 exceptions apply in order to escape the default penalty, and even then you may get life in jail, and maybe caning too. Yes, even for self-defence!

Now that I have highlighted this, most readers will realise it is quite different from how we as laymen expect the justice system to work. We mostly think that it is up to the prosecution to prove motive and premeditation in order to obtain a guilty verdict for murder, and that all the defence has to do is to show reasonable doubt.

Apparently, this is not how it is in Singapore.

PP vs Juminem and another
In this case, the defence argued successfully for diminished responsibility due to mental impairment.

Juminem was an 18 year-old domestic maid, while "another" was a 15 year-old maid. For some reason the court would not name her (because of her age?) even though the media did. Both came from Indonesia to work. Their ages given here and in the court documents referred to when the crime was committed, in March 2004.

Juminen worked for the victim, Esther Ang, 47, while Siti Aminah worked for her ex-husband. The two maids were quite close -- and were said not to have had any other friends in Singapore save each other -- since their employers, although divorced, remained on good terms and saw each other regularly.

On 2 March 2004, the two maids took turns to suffocate Ang with a pillow and used a wine bottle to hit her abdomen and head several times at her home.

The maids also faked a break-in by taking her money and valuables. Juminem then forged her employer's signature on a cheque for $25,000 payable to Siti Aminah.

Juminem had formed the intention to kill her employer, whom she considered unreasonable and oppressive, about a week before the crime. She enlisted the help of Siti Aminah.

The judge found that Juminem had been suffering from "reactive depression" as a result of stress from loneliness, financial worry and her employer's demands. The defence had quoted extensively from her diary illustrating the way her mood had changed over the months prior. She was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

As for Siti Aminah, the court found that she had been under severe stress, especially from her employer's elderly mother, who had called her names and pushed her. She was also young in age, and of borderline intelligence. The judge said she was easily led along by others. She was sentenced to 10 years' jail.

Severe though those sentences were, everyone heaved a sigh of relief. If either one of them were sentenced to death, there might well be a diplomatic row between Indonesia and Singapore.

As to be expected, there are people who think that the risk of a diplomatic row impinged on the verdict. 3 men and their wives (?) at a coffeeshop where I was having lunch last week had a heated debate about it. They got so animated, before long, 4 others joined in. (In fact, it was that scene that got me interested enough to read up about this case, which I had largely ignored till then.)

Guen Garlejo Aguilar
Aguilar is another domestic maid, but from the Philippines. She is accused of murdering another Filipino maid, Jane Parangan La Puebla, last week. The body was chopped up, bagged and left near Orchard MRT station and at Macritchie Reservoir Park.

The last time a Filipino maid was found guilty of murder and hanged was in 1995. Flor Contemplacion too had murdered another Filipino maid, Delia Maga, as well as 3-year-old Nicholas Huang, son of her employer. The murders took place in 1991.

Anger swept the Philippines as the news of the execution broke. Leftist and feminist groups, human rights activists and the media denounced Singapore as a barbaric, tyrannical and totalitarian state with no respect for human rights. The Roman Catholic Church called Singapore a state without mercy.

President Ramos of the Philippines had appealed to the Singapore president for a stay of execution in order to study new evidence, but the Singapore government dismissed the "new evidence" as fabrication.

After the hanging, when the body was flown back to Manila, it was received by Mrs Ramos, the First Lady, which was quite unprecedented. Contemplacion was treated like a heroine, and more than 5,000 jammed into the small town of San Pablo where she had lived to pay their last respects.

Roman Catholic Bishop Teodoro Bacani held a requiem mass in the town's crowded cathedral for her. He told the congregation, "She is a symbol of millions of Filipinos driven by poverty to take their chances abroad...Their lot is pathetic. Their own government neglects them." There was applause from the congregation.

Given such an accusation, there was no way for Manila to appear anything other than tough with Singapore. Bilateral relations chilled for a year after that. Singapore didn't understand the social and political dynamics of an important regional partner. Our political leaders were only familiar with the cold-blooded, tightly-controlled system they had in Singapore.

Now, in the latest case, Singapore is bending over backwards to invite coroner's examiners from the Philippines to perform a joint autopsy on the deceased, to avoid future accusations of a frame up.

The Filipino government has also arranged for the accused Guen Aguilar's husband and family to travel to Singapore so that they can meet with her.

But trouble is already brewing. The judge has refused to allow the attorney hired by the Philippine embassy to meet with his client, instead permitting the police to hold Aguilar for one week for "further investigations", even though she has already been charged, which is to say, the prosecutor already thinks Aguilar murdered La Puebla.

Latest reports say the family too has been refused permission to see her while she is in custody.

On 15 September, 2005, the Straits Times reported that,

Family members of Filipino maid and murder suspect Guen Garlejo Aguilar are likely to arrive in Singapore this week, but she will not be allowed to meet them or her lawyer until police are satisfied that this will not interfere with their investigations.

Further in the same article,

The media in the Philippines has taken issue with the decision to remand Aguilar for one week without access to legal counsel, while Mr Aguilar has appealed to Philippine President Gloria Arroyo to intervene in the case.

Once more, the scene is set for Filipinos to be convinced that Singapore is heartless and our system inherently unjust. The media in that country is bewildered that the accused can't even see her lawyer.

Yet, that is our justice system. The police are allowed first go at you if you're suspected of any crime. They can interrogate you without allowing you to have a lawyer present. They can record what you say, make you sign a statement, and another, and another, without your lawyer advising you. When they record your statements, they do not provide a copy to you or your lawyer. You may next be confronted with these statements only at your trial.

This period where you are "held for investigation" seems intended to give the police an opportunity to get you to incriminate yourself, as you well might under the pressure of interrogation, devoid of assistance.

Coming back to the case, in response to the mounting concern about lack of access to Aguilar, the Singapore government had to issue a statement, as reported in the same Straits Times article.

In a statement released yesterday, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) insisted Aguilar is being treated fairly and 'no differently from any suspect or accused person who has been charged with a similar offence'.

The MHA said: 'The basic rights and needs of an accused person in custody are always strictly observed and met.

'Any accused person under police custody is accorded proper facilities and treated humanely, including the provisions for personal hygiene, food, water and access to medical treatment if needed.'

But it stressed that the investigations must not be compromised.

How does the presence of a lawyer and family visits "compromise" any investigation unless insistence on human rights and basic norms of justice are themselves seen as a hindrance to police process?

Michael McCrea
McCrea is accused of murdering his driver, Kho Nai Guan, 46, and the driver's girlfriend, Lan Ya Ming, 29, on 2 Jan 2002 at his apartment. He managed to flee to Australia before the police could issue a warrant of arrest for him, as the bodies (and the crime) were not discovered till five days later. McCrea, a British citizen, has since been fighting extradition on the grounds that the mandatory penalty for murder in Singapore is death, and Australian law does not allow extradition of any suspect to a country where he may face capital punishment.

To get around this problem, the Singapore government has given an undertaking to Australia that even if he is convicted of murder, he will not be executed. Since by law, the judge has no choice in the matter except to impose the death penalty, this undertaking can only be realised through Presidential clemency.

Even so, it begs the question of whether there is equal justice in Singapore. Will some suspects, by their special circumstances, particularly the involvement of foreign countries face a different penalty for the same crime?

On the face of things, these 4 cases appear quite different from each other. Yet each one of them reveals some troubling aspect of our laws and justice system.

The common denominator seems to be that Singapore is out of step with expected norms prevailing in many other countries. To them, and to many Singaporeans, our laws and processes appear barbaric and unjustifiably loaded against the accused.

Hence, each time a foreign government takes an interest in a case, we have to make ad hoc adjustments in order to avoid a crisis in relations. In the example of McCrea, we've had to give up the death penalty in order to get him extradited at all.

But every time we make ad hoc adjustments, we raise the question of equal justice. We raise the suspicion that the verdict might have been less grounded on facts than on diplomatic imperatives, which, as you can imagine, does wonders (sarcasm intended) for the dictum that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done.

What purpose does capital punishment serve? It doesn't even have a deterrent effect as the experience of other countries have shown. And certainly, it has no rehabilitative effect either. You're dead, man. It's just judicial revenge, stemming from a primitive view of what a justice should be.

How do we convince anyone that denying an accused person access to a lawyer is good for justice? To me, this practice seems to come from a time when the chief aim was to get confessions, by whatever means necessary.

What is holding us back from bringing our justice system up to date? Pride. Damn pride. An unwillingness by our government to admit that their thinking is archaic, that they are more inclined to making their prosecutors' jobs easy than upholding human rights. An insistence that they always know best. An insistence that while everybody else's norms may be fine for everybody else, a different sun shines on Singapore.

Sydney_Morning_Herald

Murder charge student faces porn counts
August 3, 2004 - 12:15PM

A student accused of bludgeoning to death his two flatmates in Sydney is now facing 11 new charges including possession of child pornography.

Ram Puneet Tiwary, 25, appeared in Sydney's Central Local Court today charged with two counts of murder.

The Crown added 11 fresh charges including possessing child pornography, break enter and steal, larceny, making and using a false security licence, conducting a security act without a licence, making a false statement to obtain money and receiving stolen goods.

Tiwary did not apply for bail and was formally refused.

Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan, both 26, were found dead in the Randwick unit they shared with the accused on September 15 last year.

Both men had been hit over the head with a blunt object.

Mr Tan and Mr Tay were both married but their wives had stayed in Singapore while they studied at the University of NSW.

According to the police charge sheet tendered to the court, police found five images of girls under 16 involved in sexual activity on Tiwary's computer when the flat was searched on the night of the murders.

The other allegations included breaking into a UNSW student dormitory and stealing a computer and the theft of student identification cards and a mobile phone.

Tiwary will reappear at Central Local Court on September 14.

Sydney murder trial
Channel NewsAsia's Corey Jones in Sydney
14 September 2005 1840 hrs

A Sydney court heard on Wednesday that 28-year-old Singaporean Ram Tiwary, who is accused of murdering his two flatmates, was extremely agitated when the paramedics arrived.

In fact, the paramedics were so frightened of him that they locked themselves in their ambulance till the police arrived.

Taiwanese Vincent Tsang flew in from Taipei to testify in the Sydney murder inquiry.

He knew all three Singaporeans - the two victims and the accused - who shared an apartment near the University of New South Wales.

Mr Tsang told the court he had lived with the Singaporeans in the same first floor flat some time before the murders.

He recalled the Singaporeans had initially shared all their chores as well as household and grocery bills, but this arrangement soon broke down because all three worked different hours.

Mr Tsang recalled that the accused, Ram Tiwary, often slept in because he worked late nights as a security guard.

Earlier, Rick Irving, one of the paramedics sent to the murder scene, gave a graphic account of what he saw as they drove up.

The paramedics told how they saw Ram Tiwary approach their ambulance in an unsettled state.

There was blood on his hands and he appeared to be edgy, upset and concerned.

Mr Irving said there appeared to be dried blood on the back of Tiwary's hand.

Another paramedic, Helen Gillespie, said the ambulance team had been a little frightened when Tiwary ran up to the ambulance.

So they locked the vehicle doors and waited for the police to arrive before entering the flat.

Inside, the paramedics found both Singaporean students dead.

One had suffered significant neck trauma and blood loss, the other had a bloody wound at the back of his head.

Tiwary told the paramedics that he had been asleep when he heard a noise. He woke up, found the bodies and called the emergency services.

Several Singaporean students who knew the victims and the accused will be giving evidence over the next week.

The Newpaper
26 September 2005
VAMPIRE MURDERER?

Singaporean student Ram Puneet Tiwary used to be up all night and slept during most of the day.

Like vampires, Tiwary's name is linked to blood - he is accused of murdering his fellow Singaporean flatmates in September 2003.

In fact, a paramedic who arrived at the scene of the murders said he had seen blood on Tiwary's hands.

Singaporean Lee Kay Meng, who has known Ram Tiwary for several years, said he earned the nickname 'Vampire' because he liked to sleep in late after studying through the night.

Both were studying in Sydney on scholarships from the Singapore Armed Forces and had gone to parties and the casino together.

On Friday, a Sydney court decided that Tiwary will have to stand trial for the brutal killing of 27-year-old Tony Tan Poh Chuan and 26-year-old Tay Chow Lyang, in the flat they shared near the University of New South Wales.

Crown Prosecutor John Cline said Tiwary, 26, even forged his girlfriend's results and passed them off as his own.

'He lived a party life and slept all day. Wasn't he supposed to be going to lectures?', Mr Cline asked.

Tiwary's trial will start next year and more details of the horror killings and his lifestyle are expected to be revealed.

The police allege that around noon on 15 Sep, 2003, Tiwary bludgeoned Mr Tay with a baseball bat.

He then took a kitchen knife and stabbed Mr Tay a number of times. After he had placed a chair in the lounge to block the view of the body, he took a shower.

But Tiwary's lawyer disputed this, saying he did not shower and that no trace of blood was found on any of the towels in the house.

Some time later, Mr Tan walked into the house.

He is said to have been at a lecture until 1.45pm that day.

According to the police, he was attacked by Tiwary as he walked through the front door and discovered Mr Tay's body.

Tiwary is alleged to have hit Mr Tan on the face, smashing his glasses and knocking out several teeth.

Mr Tan ran back to the front door to escape. But he was again allegedly beaten - this time on the head with the bat - and then stabbed.

While Mr Tan is said to have died soon afterwards, a pathologist who conducted autopsies on the two bodies, told the court that Mr Tay may have remained alive for two hours after he was attacked.

But Tiwary had a different story to tell. He said he had received a telephone call from his girlfriend at 6.30am on the morning of the murders, got up, had breakfast and then returned to bed.

A highly emotional Tiwary told the emergency operator over the phone that he had been woken up by a screaming noise and opened the bedroom door to find two dead bodies and a baseball bat on the floor.

Tiwary made the call from his bedroom, telling the operator that there has been a murder and he needed an ambulance.

He said there was blood all over the place and that two of his friends were dead.

When the operator asked him whether his friends were definitely dead or whether they were unconscious, he again said that there was blood all over the place and that he could not tell whether they were dead.

The operator wanted to know whether Tiwary's friends were shot or stabbed.

'No, there's a baseball bat and a knife there.'

'They're bashed in completely. Yes, there's a knife lying on the ground as well,' he replied.

During the call, the operator asked Tiwary whether there was anyone else in the house.

His reply: 'Unless he's in one of the other bedroom, I don't know. But I have got a bat with me...'

Just before the conversation ended, the operator asked Tiwary if he was holding the baseball bat, and if so, to put it down.

The court heard that when it comes to personal security, especially among students, baseball bats are often the weapon of choice.

Media reports have it that Tiwary's family in Singapore is said to be concerned about his mental health and is said to have hired a forensic psychologist to examine him.

His cousin Ramesh Tiwary, a lawyer, while giving evidence, criticised the police and prosecution for being slow in calling witnesses.

A few other Singaporeans gave evidence.

Mr Lee was one of them. Although they had gone to casinos together, he said Tiwary did not have a gambling problem, although he once lost A$900 ($1,160) on a single visit a few weeks before the murders.

Another Singaporean, Mr Chaw Bak You, a friend of Mr Tay, said under cross-examination that Mr Tay was careful with his money and took note of people who owed him large sums.

He said Mr Tay had stuck a note on the back of the apartment's front door about a sum of money a former housemate, Mr Vincent Tsang, owed him. Mr Tsang, a Taiwanese, had moved out of the apartment before the murder.

A hint of a gay relationship also reared its head during the cross-examination.

Mr Chaw told the court that another friend, Mr Alan Wong, had a close relationship with Mr Tay.

He said he had seen Mr Wong frequently touching Mr Tay and that Mr Tay's wife was jealous of Mr Wong.

On Friday, the final day of the nine-day preliminary hearing, the prosecutor told the court that Tiwary had done badly in his studies and had fallen behind on his rent.

But his defence lawyer said the case against him was based largely on speculation, which included allegations that he had an argument with his flatmates over his delay in paying his share of the rent.

link

June 08
The Sydney Double Murder

Today's the closing of the Sydney Double Murder case. For the past few days and last week, a lot of things have been running through my mind. The two murder victims were Singaporeans students at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), to make it even more personal, one of them, Tony Tan Poh Chuan was my brother's polytechnic classmate, and they used to sit side by side in class. Both left behind a lot of emotional baggages: both were only sons, who left behind very young wives and were nearing the completion of their undergraduate courses. But of the two, the unfortunate incident has also torn apart the Tan family. It didn't do justice that his family exposed its dirty linen as well, with financial disagreement between father and daughter-in-law. The Tay family however, got on very well, and relationship was closer than ever.

I wonder what took the Australian police and forensic scientists so long to figure out the whole case. Even then they were nowhere near the standards of most developed countries in forensic science / pathology. The double murder took place in September 2003 and has yet to reach a closure. There was also no doubt that the murder accuse, Ram Tiwary was also the very person who brutally murdered his two roommates over money. His account was littered with lies, and for the most part he wasn't even consistent at all.

Everytime this kindda thing happened, my mind would reconstruct the murder with the details from the newspapers. The same thing happened with the recent rape-murder of a business executive in Malaysia, who went missing during a jog with her sister only to be found naked waist-down and dead. What a heinous thing to do, who can guarantee the safety of girls and women. The disappointments I get from visualising these murders were having to 'witness' the brutal end of the victims and being unable to see the faces of their perpetrators.

How frightening it must be for Poh Chuan to know what helplessness in the face of danger when the perpetrator closed the door which he tried to open it. All it took was a few minutes for the murderer to get the kitchen knife to finish both him and his other roommate. While I have done anything like that, I know that once a person has committed such a crime, it is very likely that he / she will commit the same thing again. Guilt doesn't haunt individuals who plotted murder. All it takes is just the intent to commit murder.

If only judicial proceedings was held in Singapore, the murderer would definitely be sent to the gallows.

It's emotionally distressing that somebody we once knew, was extinguished at the prime of his life. I wonder how my brother and his polytechnic classmates felt about the absent classmate during their gatherings. While everyone progresses in life and grow old, this friend will never grow old together with them.

Mama just told me that Poh Chuan was an intelligent individual. The way I see it intelligent people will be shortchanged but dull people have already been shortchanged.

link

Monday, June 12, 2006
Money, chores created friction among flatmates

The story below struck a familiar chord when I read it. Reminded me of what could have gone wrong but thankfully didn't when I was in UK. Grateful that I could stay in a hall in my first year and get to know some people first instead of jumping straight into an apartment. So for those Singaporeans who are going overseas and happen to chance upon this blog, do take care in choosing housemates! It makes a hell of a difference!

From The Straits Times

Like many foreign students, the three Singaporeans were thrown together in Sydney to set up a home away from home. Despite their very different personalities, in the seven months they stayed together, they generally got along well - until rent, bills, chores and each other's pet peeves started getting in the way.

Now the youngest of the trio, Ram Tiwary, is on trial for killing his flatmates, Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, in September 2003. Tiwary was then 24.

From the 16-day hearing in a Sydney court, it was clear the three were the most unlikely of housemates. Mr Tan was studious, neat and tidy, Mr Tay obsessively careful with money, and Tiwary an inveterate socialiser.

Crown Prosecutor Tim Hoyle said there was 'very minimal social contact'. Tiwary did not even know Mr Tan's surname when first questioned by detectives.

It was the Barker Street apartment, with its relatively cheap rent and close proximity to the University of New South Wales, that drew them together. Mr Tay got a room in August 2002, soon after starting his undergraduate studies, followed by Tiwary, then Mr Tan in March 2003.

There was a fourth person in the flat, a Taiwanese student named Mr Vincent Tseng, but his departure in July that year marked the point that relations among the trio took a distinct turn for the worse.

Mr Tay was the only one of the trio paying his own way through university, dipping into the combined savings he kept with his wife, a Chinese teacher.

Tiwary and Mr Tan were both on Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) study awards.

Twice a year, Mr Tay would carefully plan his budget for the next six months. If he overspent, he would get by on biscuits just to balance his books.

The apartment lease was in his name and he was usually the one who settled all the bills.

Every month, 'like clockwork', he would pay the A$2,172 (S$2,585) rent to the landlord, then collect each flatmate's portion and issue a computer-printed receipt with his signature.

He also handled the utility bills, but his insistence on dividing the bills equally was a sore point, especially with Mr Tan, who communicated with his wife over the Internet and hardly used the house phone.

But Mr Tay was so particular that he even inserted a clause in the lease listing 'toilet paper expenses' as an item every flatmate was obliged to chip in for.

This meticulous financial husbandry grated on Tiwary too, according to the prosecution. They say Tiwary, now 27, killed Mr Tay because he kept pressing him for the A$5,045 he owed in rent.

When police combed through the trio's finances, they found Tiwary broke, with a negative 84 cents in his bank account.

His account trail showed that he made frequent withdrawals - sometimes as much as A$400 at one go. He spent most of it on clothes, model aeroplanes, alcohol and, two days before the murders, A$60 on the baseball bat used to kill at least one of the victims.

He had to work part-time as a security guard to just about keep his head above water and was also accused of a series of thefts.

Mr Tan liked to splurge, too, on hobbies like diving, but never spent beyond his means.

That Mr Tay was tough with money was no secret to his friends, who described him as 'stingy'. One recalled how he threatened to sell off Mr Tseng's belongings because he owed him A$63 in unpaid electricity bills. It was Mr Tay's refusal to let Mr Tseng skip a month's rent when he went on holiday to Europe that made the Taiwanese student leave the flat.

With a fourth person gone, the rent had to be split three ways, with each liable for an extra A$200 a month.

The prosecution said this was why Tiwary cooked up a 'fictional character', Andrew, to stop Mr Tay raising the rent.

But when Andrew never appeared after several months, Mr Tay lost his patience and wanted Tiwary to pay his imaginary friend's share of the rent.

Mr Tan, who had learnt to cook in Sydney, was the designated chef, leaving Tiwary and Mr Tay to do the washing up.

But his mother, Madam Chiew Lee Hua, said her son got so fed up with the others leaving the dishes unwashed that he refused to cook for them anymore.

From then on, they prepared their own meals or had takeaways. Grocery shopping became an individual affair and fridge items were labelled by each one.

Friends and the widows of the two slain men all said they hardly saw Tiwary in the flat. He was a night bird and a late riser, while the others were usually in bed by midnight and up by 9am.

Mr Tan and Mr Tay tended to spend their time studying. On the rare occasions they left the flat, it was to go to school or to buy essentials. They kept largely to themselves, mixing with only a small group of friends, mainly fellow Singaporeans or Asians.

Tiwary preferred hanging out with students of all nationalities.

The joke among students then was if anyone wanted to look for Tiwary, they would have better luck in pubs than on campus.

The two victims were from typical heartlander families. Both lived in three-room HDB flats, both their fathers are in the construction industry and both their mothers are part-time hawkers.

Both Mr Tan and Mr Tay studied in neighbourhood schools and got to university via the polytechnic route.

In a diary he kept while training to be an army officer, Mr Tan wrote that his motto as a youth was 'All Play and No Study'. Yet, he reversed that motto when older, and graduated with merit from Singapore Polytechnic with a diploma in architectural technology.

He was determined to do well as his parents led a hard life without a proper education, and they hoped to see their children graduate and have good careers. He aimed to reach the rank of Major by 30 and provide for his parents.

Mr Tay was a top student in the same polytechnic, which allowed him to go directly into the third year of the university's electrical engineering course.

Before he died, Mr Tay was working on a thesis on motor movement control, which could help treat people with motor function problems.

Both men were serious about their studies, rarely missed classes and were almost never late.

Mr Tan was doing so well that all his classmates in his telecommunications engineering final-year class knew he would get a first class honours.

He did, posthumously.

Mr Tay was also awarded his degree posthumously.

Tiwary, on the other hand, comes from an educated, middle-class family. He did his primary and secondary education in Brunei, where his father was a vice-principal in St Andrew's School.

He told New South Wales police he felt the pressure to do well in studies and hinted he was trying for a degree as it was 'something my dad would have wanted'.

But Tiwary was notorious for showing up midway through lectures, if at all, and failed several subjects. When asked about the $30,000 in compensation he would have to pay the SAF if he failed, he joked: 'My dad has the money, not me.'

The Barker Street second-storey apartment where the murders took place is now occupied by four Asian students.

Landlord Albert Lichia, 56, who lives in the unit below, said he could not find any students to move in for almost two years after the murders. He said: 'They were nice and friendly people, never caused me any trouble. It's such a horrible thing to happen...for all three of them.'

link

Ram was my platoon mate in Bravo 1 when I was in OCS. We weren’t friends but for a few months in 1998/1999, we depended on each other for support during training as did everybody else. It’s funny to think the guy who bunked next to me in Taiwan has now been convicted of a double murder. It’s hard for me to grasp the idea.

The Ram I knew wasn’t a bad guy at all. Sometimes a bit lazy. Sometimes a bit sycophantic (or "Wayang" as they say in army-speak). Not unlike any other officer cadet. Every fact about him mentioned in the article I can believe, and some, like his reputation as a ladies’ man I have even heard first hand. All except that bit about being a murderer.

I hope if he’s innocent that he will eventually be able to clear his name. Otherwise he’ll have to play with the cards he’s dealt.

The Newpaper
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER
By Dominic Ying
June 22, 2006

Shocked, sad, and hopeful. That was how relatives felt when the jury found Ram Tiwary guilty of both murder charges.

The New Paper spoke to a close relative who grew up with him.

He was the darling of the family, the relative said.

In their eyes, he was a mentor, a ladies’ man and a sentimental son.

He was helpful and a good listener. But he could also have a temper.

And now he is a murderer, likely to be locked up for a long time, for bashing his two housemates to death in Sydney nearly three years ago.

The relative spoke on condition of anonymity, as Tiwary’s immediate family had asked all their relatives not to speak to the media.

‘Naturally, we’re wondering if the jury has made the right decision, but we’re hoping there is a chance for appeal,’ said the relative.

Tiwary had no reaction when the verdict was delivered.

‘That is him, always cool about things, you can drop a bombshell on him and he would still smile.

‘Once, when his late great-granddad collapsed, Ram was the one who took control and administered CPR,’ said the relative.

The extended family has met on several occasions since Tiwary was arrested and charged with the murders, but no one talks about the case.

‘Though his family is holding up, this period has been very tough for all of us - uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces,’ said the relative.

‘But no one has ever brought it up because it’s not going to change anything, and it only makes everyone more upset.’

When Tiwary was arrested, family members were shocked.

Tiwary had initially refused to meet anyone while in prison, even his immediate family members.

A lawyer cousin then got him to change his mind and Tiwary met his parents after months without contact.

Tiwary is the second of three sons. Their father, now retired, was the vice-principal of a school in Brunei.

His elder brother, 29, is working, while his younger brother, 20, is doing his national service.

The close-knit extended Tiwary family includes several lawyers.

‘There are very few of us here, and some are in very respectable jobs, so naturally it’s tough,’ said the relative.

‘Friends have asked questions and we really don’t know how to answer them, but we’ve grown to live with it.’

Tiwary was always looked up to by the younger ones.

‘He was always very willing to help and would take time out for you when needed. Household chores, errands...

‘Once, clothes pegs had fallen from a flat to the void deck area and he went down without being asked to retrieve them, though it wasn’t his own home.’

He would take kids to the playground and carry them onto the monkey bars, and attend to them when they were on the slides and see-saws.

‘He was also a very good listener when we needed advice or just someone to talk to,’ said the relative.

Tiwary signed on in the army as an infantry officer.

He later went to study mechanical engineering at the University of New South Wales on a Singapore Armed Forces Local Study Award.

The younger ones looked up to him as a mentor as he seemed to be good at everything, said the relative.

‘His mother was very proud of him and always told us how good a student he was in school. He was everybody’s favourite.’

When he came back to Singapore during his semester breaks, he would make it a point to visit all his relatives.

Tiwary, known to be a party animal, was apparently popular with the ladies.

‘He was very open about the girls he went out with. I don’t know how many girlfriends he’s had. He’s probably lost count too,’ the relative said.

Tiwary’s current girlfriend, Australian Elvira Metiljevic, apparently was his most serious girlfriend. He met her during his freshman year at university while she was studying aeronautical engineering, said the relative.

Tiwary’s interests included building model aeroplanes and drawing.

‘He was a perfectionist when it came to his hobbies. He took so much care in making and painting those planes that he would lose all track of time. ‘He also loved to sketch both portraits and cars,’ said the relative.

Before Tiwary went to study in Australia, he became emotional at the thought of leaving his family.

‘He dropped by all our relatives’ homes for dinner and even cried,’ recalled the relative.

But beneath all this lay a bad temper.

‘He nearly got into a fight with an uncle over some insignificant issue four years ago.

‘We were all quite shocked over his behaviour as it was really uncalled for,’ the relative said.

As the Sydney trial drew to a close, relatives were concerned about the health of Tiwary’s father.

‘He had open heart surgery about four years ago, and is still not in the best of health,’ said the relative.

Tiwary’s mother has also been reclusive since his arrest.

‘She used to be a very happy and friendly woman, always keeping in touch with her family in India.

‘Now she just prays alone every day for four to five hours at a go.’

It is believed that the legal expenses for Tiwary have amounted to half a million dollars, said the relative.

‘The elder brother was supposed to get married in an arranged marriage sometime last year but that has been delayed because of the case,’ the relative said.

Singaporean Ram Tiwary’s trial for the murders of his flatmates, Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, on 15 Sep, 2003, lasted 16 days.

It was in Sydney’s New South Wales Supreme Court.

The two students were beaten to death in the Sydney flat they had shared with Tiwary at the time.

According to a Straits Times report, all three were officers in the Singapore Armed Forces who had been studying at the University of New South Wales.

Tiwary, pleaded not guilty when his trial began on 15 May.

A 12-man jury found him guilty of both murders yesterday.

Tiwary faces at least 40 years in prison.

The Straits Times
Sydney murders: Blood is key evidence
By Ben Nadarajan
Jun 14, 2006

In Sydney - New South Wales police believe Singaporean student Ram Tiwary killed his two flatmates over money, but whether the jury agrees or not is likely to hinge on the issue of bloodstains.

The brutal murders of Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Mr Tay Chow Lyang left plenty of blood around the Barker Street apartment for Sydney detectives to analyse, and since there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution is depending on this and circumstantial evidence to make its case.

Justice Michael Adams has commented several times that the bloodstains are ’significant, if not vital’ to the case. After a 17-day trial with over 40 witnesses, it boils down to three disputed points.

First, only Mr Tan’s blood was found on the murder weapons: an aluminium baseball bat and a kitchen knife. Forensic biologist Virginia Friedman also found Mr Tan’s DNA on both weapons, but not Mr Tay’s. This could be because the police sent her only swabs of the blood they spotted on the murder weapons for testing.

The laboratories never got to examine the weapons for blood, with equipment that can detect blood invisible to the naked eye, said Dr Friedman.

The defence’s expert witness, retired police crime scene investigator Warren Day, criticised the police for this. ‘In my era, we would have sent the whole weapon to the labs,’ said Mr Day, who retired in 1992 after 28 years on the force. ‘The police might not detect tiny specks of blood on the weapons, which the labs could.’

Defence counsel Peter Doyle got Dr Friedman and, later, crime scene investigator Philip Elliott to concede that they would have expected to find DNA of both victims on the weapons.

Detectives suggest that the blood from Mr Tay, who was attacked first, was washed off the weapons before they were later used on Mr Tan.

But if the killer had the presence of mind to wash the bat and knife the first time, why did he not do the same after killing Mr Tan?

Crime scene investigator Christopher Clarke said there was no sign of blood being washed down the sinks in the flat. Justice Adams also pointed out there were no water marks on the weapons to suggest they had been washed.

Mr Doyle has suggested that the baseball bat and knife the police seized were not the murder weapons, at least not those used on Mr Tay.

If the jury agrees, it means there could be another murder weapon and killer still out there, which would greatly weaken the prosecution’s case.

Another disputed issue is the absence of Mr Tay’s blood on Tiwary. Mr Day said he believed the man who attacked Mr Tay would ‘almost certainly’ get blood splattered on his front and perhaps even on his back, when the bloodied bat was swung backwards for subsequent strikes.

But Sergeant Elliott said blood from a victim does not always find its way onto the murderer: ‘Depending on the angle of the impact... and many other factors, the splatter might not land on any part of the assailant.’

Mr Doyle argued in his closing submissions that the absence of Mr Tay’s DNA on the accused was the ‘most striking feature of the crime scene’, and indicated his client was innocent.

Justice Adams appears to agree, describing the lack of Mr Tay’s blood on the weapons and on Tiwary a ‘mystery’ that will never be explained.

The third and perhaps most important aspect of the bloodstain evidence involves the spots of Mr Tan’s blood found on Tiwary.

When police arrived at the apartment after the murders, several red specks were on Tiwary’s hands, feet, T-shirt and shorts. Only those on his hands were obvious to the naked eye.

The police say the other stains were too small for the accused to notice, hence he did not get rid of them. As for the blood on his hands, they claim Tiwary left it there to corroborate his story about checking Mr Tan’s pulse.

They say the blood got there when Tiwary atacked Mr Tan, but Tiwary claims he was checking Mr Tan for a pulse when his dying flatmate coughed blood out onto him.

Justice Adams said this was a ‘crucial and decisive’ area that could swing the jury’s decision. No wonder, then, that the defence spent its entire case trying to establish Tiwary’s version of how the blood got there.

Blood splatter analysts could not agree on what the stains indicate. To Sgt Elliott, the blood spots were of ‘medium velocity’ type or ‘impact splatter’, the pattern of stains created when the body is struck with force.

The same kind of bloodstains were found on the wall behind where Mr Tan was assaulted, and on his feet. The police say this suggests two possibilities: Tiwary was the killer, or at the very least he was in ‘very close proximity’ when the victim was struck.

Defence counsel Doyle put forward a third possibility: When his client checked on his friend, Mr Tan’s airway became blocked and, even though he was unconscious, his body went into a reflex action and coughed out blood.

Mr Day pointed out circular smears in the blood spots, which he said were air bubbles from expirated blood.

Sgt Elliott agreed there was frothy blood on Mr Tan’s mouth, nose and throat, but none on Tiwary.

Medical experts also disagree over whether Mr Tan, with the massive injuries to his head, could expirate blood.

Forensic pathologist Johan DuFlou said it would have been impossible for someone as ‘deeply unconscious’ as Mr Tan, an argument supported by Dr Gordian Fulde, the director of emergency medicine at Sydney’s St Vincent Hospital.

Neurologist Mark Hersch, put on the stand by the defence, pointed to studies on animals that showed it is indeed possible. Dr Hersch noted that Mr Tan’s brain stem, which controls such reflexes, had not been damaged in the attack.

But, as Crown Prosecutor Tim Hoyle pointed out, the issue is not whether an unconscious man can expirate blood. The issue, and what Justice Adams called the ‘clincher evidence’, is how the blood got onto Tiwary.

If the jury concludes that it got there when Tiwary was trying to save his friend, or think there is sufficient doubt over how it got there, Tiwary will walk free.

Channel News Asia
UNSW double-murder trial begins
Tuesday May 16, 2006

The high-profile Ram Tiwary double-murder trial has begun in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney.

The former Singapore Armed Forces scholar is charged with clubbing his two Singaporean flat-mates to death with a baseball bat on the morning of Sept 15, 2003.

Tiwary, who was a 24-year-old student at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) at the time, has pleaded not guilty to murdering fellow UNSW students Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang, both 26.

The murder trial is expected to last up to six weeks.

Prosecutor Tim Hoyle told the jury that Tiwary had fallen behind on his rent and owed his flatmates A$5,000 ($6,050).

But beyond this possible trigger, the prosecutor admitted his case was built on circumstantial and forensic evidence.

The court heard Tiwary had bought the baseball bat used in the attack a few days before the murder and there were specks of blood on Tiwary’s hands and feet.

However, defence lawyer Peter Doyle reminded the jury that there were no witnesses and Tiwary had not fled the scene.

The blood specks may have been picked up when Tiwary checked one of the victims for signs of life, he argued.

Tiwary, who was the one who called the police, had claimed that he heard one of his flatmates running past his bedroom crying out for help, followed by a loud metallic thud.

When police arrived, they found Mr Tay dead on the floor with a massive injury to the back of his head.

The other victim, Mr Tan, was found dead near the front door of the flat.

He had been felled by a heavy blow and was also stabbed in the neck.

The prosecutor says both men suffered numerous defensive wounds to their hands.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 at 1:16 am and is filed under thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to "Life deals an unfortunate hand"

Kevin Says:
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 am
Pretty nuts man... gotta remember to look at the big picture whenever you’re angry. Something which might not look stupid at that moment, might turn out so later.

Biao Says:
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 am
I don’t mind doing something stupid when I go nuts but I think committing murder is several leagues above stupid.

I should make sure my response levels is not this:
1) Pout
2) Punch wall
3) Beat the shit out of people who annoy you.

Catholic Writings » More about Tiwary Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 12:22 am
[...] I got a comment from an ex-platoon mate of Tiwary’s in OCS with a link. Instead of leaving it in the comments, I decided to post it up here because there are some things that don’t sit well with me. [...]

tipper Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:29 am
I had relatively close contact with Puneet. Back in his secondary school days, when he fails to do his homework, the teacher would scold him. He would then retaliate with physical threats. When he assulted a teacher in front of the class, his father, who was an admin of the same school, scolded the TEACHER for scolding his son.

I’m not surprised at this murder incident.

link

July 1, 2006
More about Tiwary
Filed under: General, News - catholicwriter @ 4:04 pm

I got a comment from an ex-platoon mate of Tiwary’s in OCS with a link. Instead of leaving it in the comments, I decided to post it up here because there are some things that don’t sit well with me.

The news reports portray Tiwary as a liar, a thief, and an overall bad person. But that doesn’t make him a murderer.

The jury took five days to come to a unanimous decision on Tiwary’s fate. That means that there were objections to his guilt. To me, I would say that the evidence provided is insufficient to convict him.

One reason is the lack of a motivation for murder. The court’s conclusion is that Tiwary murdered one of his housemates for money, and eliminated the other to silence him.

Two questions arise: would any sane person murder another person for a mere $5,000? And it’s not like his family is poor, if he’s able to go to Sydney to study.

Second, the prosecutor says that blood from only one victim was found on the murder weapons - a knife and a bat.

The prosecutor said that Tiwary could have washed the blood after killing his first victim. But the defendant pointed out that if Tiwary was coolheaded enough to do that the first time, why not the second?

Evidence showed that there was no sign of blood in the sink pipes or any marks, and neither was there any signs on the murder weapons of them having been washed. Based on this, the defendant believes that there is a second set of murder weapons out there.

Another issue brought up is that the police did not send the murder weapons for testing at the labs. They only sent blood samples found on the murder weapon.

I feel that’s sloppy investigation and that there could be another murderer on the loose in Sydney because a proper investigation was not carried out.

There’s just so many loose ends that need to be looked into... and I think it’s just wrong to judge a person based on his personality. Granted that the jury probably didn’t do that, but that’s what the news reports making readers do. They’re making people go, "No wonder he’s a murderer lah, he’s a liar, a thief, and hot-tempered some more. Sure guilty one!"

3 Comments »
in logic, this is a fallacy named ad hominem.
Comment by reginaxie - July 1, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

Hey, I remember seeing a similar thing during the GE period...
Comment by catholicwriter - July 2, 2006 @ 12:05 am

I read your story, and I believe what you say. But that’s only one side of him.

I had relatively close contact with Puneet. Back in his secondary school days, when he fails to do his homework, the teacher would scold him. He would then retaliate with physical threats. When he assulted a teacher in front of the class, his father, who was an admin of the same school, scolded the TEACHER for scolding his son.

I’m not surprised at this murder incident.
Comment by tipper - July 28, 2006 @ 4:31 pm

Update:

With such unusual traffic searching for the sentencing on Ram Puneet Tiwary, how can I have the heart to disappoint? But let's backtrack a little initially.

The Straits Times
July 10, 2006
By Andy Ho

Two criminal cases were in the headlines in recent weeks. In Sydney, 12 jurors unanimously found Ram Puneet Tiwary guilty of killing Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang on Sept 15, 2003. All involved were Singaporeans. Tiwary is likely to be sentenced to two life sentences or 40 years.

In Singapore, Briton Michael McCrea killed his Singaporean driver Kho Nai Guan on Jan 2, 2002, and, a day later, Kho's girlfriend, a China national called Lan Ya Ming. After a bench trial (one without a jury), McCrea was sentenced to 24 years' jail.

Granted that their individual circumstances were different, a jury trial (in Australia) led to a longer sentence than a bench trial (in Singapore), even though both cases involved double killings.

Some people feel that Singapore should return to trial by jury. They say we should look at Japan, which passed a law in 2004 to implement a jury system in 2009. At the very least, they say, those charged with serious crimes in Singapore should have the option of a jury trial.

Would that improve the criminal justice system? Many factors say no.

What on earth is this 'kill' word? Genocide (Mass Murder)? Homicide (pre-Meditated Murder)? Culpable homicide (Man-slaughter)? So reluctant to dial 'M'? Further down in the commentary,

Jurors are amateur adjudicators. They have inherent limits in, first, time - their lives and work schedules cannot be interrupted indefinitely; second, experience - by design, jurors have little or none; and, third, resources - jurors have neither staff nor researchers to help them.

In Singapore, jury trials lasted from 1826 until 1960, when they became restricted to capital offences. In the first reading to amend the Criminal Procedure Bill in 1959 for this purpose, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued that juries could be swayed by eloquent defense lawyers.

In his 2000 memoirs, Mr Lee said he had himself secured the acquittal of four alleged murderers in a 1950 riot case - as was his professional duty to do so - in part by working on the weaknesses of the jury. That left him with 'grave doubts about the practical value of the jury system in Singapore'.

In 1970, juries were abolished altogether. Speaking during the second reading of the Criminal Procedure Bill for this purpose, Mr Lee argued that juries seemed 'overwhelmed' by the burden of finding a man guilty of a capital offence. After the second reading, the Bill was referred to a select committee, where Mr Lee had an exchange with Mr David Marshall, 'then our most successful criminal lawyer, (who) claimed he had 99 acquittals out of 100 cases he had defended for murder', as Mr Lee put it in his memoirs.

When Mr Lee asked him if the 99 had been wrongly charged, Mr Marshall replied that it was not for him to judge but to defend them, which only buttressed Mr Lee's point that a lawyer with the requisite oratorical skills and flair for the dramatic might just be able to sway juries.

In the select committee too, as Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang pointed out in a 1983 article he wrote while still a tutor at the National University of Singapore law faculty, two sets of jurors offered testimony which shed some light on how juries functioned here at the time. (The inner sanctum of jury deliberations is traditionally off limits to everyone else in virtually all jurisdictions.)

First, the foreman in a case dubbed the Peeping Tom murder revealed that a 4-3 decision had been reached rather than the minimum 5-2 required by law. However, he had erroneously reported a unanimous verdict. Realizing his mistake later on, he notified the High Court Registrar but, by then, no reversals could be made. The foreman revealed that at least four of the seven jurors were totally confused by the terms 'majority' and 'unanimous'.

Second, there was testimony that many jurors in what was dubbed the Murder By Car case could not even read the oath properly. Moreover, one juror had called another afterwards to say he was shocked at the death sentence, which he did not know was mandated by law. However, he mistakenly spoke to the juror's brother, who informed the killer's lawyer.

At select committee, the juror admitted to these facts but insisted that jury trials should be abolished. Clearly, he would have found the accused guilty of a lesser charge had he known about the mandatory death sentence. Another juror also expressed similar distress upon learning about the death sentence after the fact. These lent support to Mr Lee's point that local juries were hesitant to convict because of the death penalty.

Overall, at the time, public support for serving on juries was clearly less than enthusiastic. Unsurprisingly, the Bill passed with little opposition.

Would a more educated citizenry today make for better jurors?

We do know that they would certainly cost more. Operating a jury system will incur costs in gathering names to draw a list of possible jurors. There have to be staff to summon jurors, answer queries, reschedule those with conflicts, check jurors in on the first day of jury duty, and escort them to the right courtroom. In court, they must be instructed again and either is chosen or sent home. Those chosen must be then be sheltered and sometimes sequestered throughout the trial.

Costs are also incurred by jurors and their employers in terms of lost time, wages and productivity.

Also, jury trials are simply longer than bench trials. Jurors must be selected and instructed anew in each case. Motions must be filed and hearings conducted to shield jurors from inadmissible evidence. By contrast, in a bench trial, the judge can listen to all evidence submitted and decide which is not admissible.

Moreover, lawyers typically reiterate an important fact many times to make sure that no juror misses it. Thus trying a case will just take longer than a bench trial.

And as each trial gets longer, fewer can be tried, witnesses may move away, their recall could fade and some may even die in the interim.

These not inconsiderable costs aside, the cultural context to jury trials must be kept in mind. It was the fear of government oppression in the form of misguided legislatures, iniquitous judges or overzealous prosecutors that led Americans to favor divided over efficient government. Jury trials were part of that plan: Having both judge and jury approve each judgment meant that one would need to corrupt both court and jury to cause a miscarriage of justice.

Not so in Singapore. The idea here is that it is far better to choose the right personnel than look to checks and balances in the criminal justice system. With responsible and competent officials in charge, checks and balances are less important; if they are not, no checks and balances will suffice anyway.

Here, at bench trials, the judge functions to make sure that police and prosecutors have made no obvious errors in their pre-trial investigations which help to establish guilt. Such an approach trades off what would be long drawn-out jury trials for efficient administrative decisions.

When it's so tongue-tripping just negotiating the 'M' word, how could the Straits Times cover Ram Puneet Tiwary's sentencing. McCrea was sentenced to 24 years jail. No blue collar. If his stay in the slammer is uneventful, he'd be out in 18. That's Singapore perverted justice.

Ram Puneet Tiwary hails from an extended family that boasts several legal experts on Singapore law. Nobody told him Australian justice was different. Nobody told him to pay for his baseball bat in cold hard cash. Nobody told him to vary his methods a little. Nobody told him his plan stank a mile off. Nobody told him two hour breaks in-between 'killings' was pushing his luck (And no, not even if he took a day off in-between either). Nobody told him he'd get life. Here's your update.

Channel News Asia
06 November 2006
By Lau Joon-Nie

Singaporean Ram Tiwary has been sentenced to life imprisonment by an Australian court for bludgeoning his two flatmates to death with a baseball bat.

The three men, all Singaporeans, had shared an apartment in the eastern Sydney suburb of Kingsford at the time of the murder in September 2003.

They were all engineering students at the University of New South Wales.

The New South Wales Supreme Court heard that Tiwary, then 24, had owed Mr Tay Chow Lyang more than five thousand Australian dollars (over US$3,800) in rent.

Tiwary was handed a 25-year jail sentence for killing Mr Tay.

But he received a concurrent life sentence without parole for murdering Mr Tan Poh Chuan two hours after attacking Mr Tay.

In passing sentence, the court took into account his youth and the brutality of the attacks, especially on Mr Tan which showed that it had been planned.

Tiwary was found guilty after a 16-day jury trial which ended in June.

In a 13-page judgment, Justice Michael Adams described the killings as 'extremely grave' and 'taken together, readily fall into the most serious class of murder'.

'I do not doubt there are some cases where the crimes are so heinous that, simply put, a life sentence is deserved and the only way in which adequate punishment and retribution can be reflected in the sentence is by way of the imposition of sentence without the possibility of release,' he wrote.

Said Justice Adams: 'The murder of Mr Tan is the more serious of the two ... because it followed the first and thus, permits no room for doubt that it was premeditated and deliberately undertaken in full knowledge of the nature of the crime; I consider, also, that it was committed in order to remove a potential incriminating witness from the scene in an attempt to avoid justice.'

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/uni-student-accused-of-killing-flatmates-20090831-f538.html

Uni student accused of killing flatmates
MARGARET SCHEIKOWSKI
August 31, 2009 - 5:49PM

A Singaporean scholarship student is accused of murdering his two flatmates by bludgeoning them with a baseball bat and stabbing them, a jury has been told.

But Ram Puneet Tiwary, now 30, told police he was asleep and woke to hear screams and a hitting sound before discovering the two bloodied bodies in their Sydney flat.

Tiwary has pleaded not guilty in the NSW Supreme Court to murdering Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan, both 26, on September 15, 2003, at their Kingsford flat.

On Monday, the jury was told the three were Singaporeans, studying engineering at the University of NSW.

Tiwary's barrister, David Dalton SC, made various admissions on his behalf, including that he had bought a baseball bat two days before the murder.

He was on a scholarship from the Singapore armed services and under an agreement his fees and an allowance were paid.

But he was required to study full-time, although he did not re-enrol for one of his semesters, and he had failed some subjects but told the army he had passed.

He also admitted that police found a note in his bedroom, in Mr Tay's writing, which set out a $5,054 debt owed by Tiwary.

He further agreed he was to take over paying the $2,172 monthly rent from two days before the murders but this was never paid.

In the crown opening address, John Kiely SC said these factors resulted in this being a "stressful time" for Tiwary.

At 2.20pm on September 15, Tiwary made a triple-zero call, saying there had been two murders at the flat, that he had been in his room and his friends were lying dead outside.

The victims had extensive head injuries and stab wounds to the neck, with one forensic expert saying the former were the most severe he had seen in his 20 years' experience.

Tiwary, who had dried blood on his hands, was observed by police to be agitated, shaking and rambling.

Mr Kiely said both victims had money in their wallets and nothing was reported missing from the unit.

"It would appear that robbery was not a motive in this particular case," he said.

Mr Dalton is expected to give a defence opening address on Tuesday at the trial before Justice Peter Johnson.

© 2009 AAP

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/legalnews/63702.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss

S'porean on trial again for Sydney murders
[2009] 31 Aug_ST

Title: S'porean on trial again for Sydney murders
Source: Straits Times
Author: K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

Legal News Archive

SIX years after two Singaporean students were found brutally battered to death in their Sydney apartment, the man accused of killing them goes on trial for the second time today.

This time round, though, Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary, now 28, will testify in his defence, unlike the first trial three years ago when he chose to remain silent.

Then, after 18 days of hearing, Tiwary was convicted of the double murders by a jury and was later ordered to be jailed for life. The jury took five days to deliberate before returning a guilty verdict.

He earned a reprieve last December when a New South Wales Appeal Court ruled that the way the trial judge instructed the jury to regard the evidence presented was improper.

The judges also felt some of the evidence presented by the prosecution did not support a conviction, but they also said they were not convinced Tiwary should be acquitted.

Tiwary is accused of murdering his fellow Singaporeans Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in September 2003 in a duplex apartment they shared near the University of New South Wales campus in Barker Street where they all studied.

He allegedly bashed and stabbed Mr Tay to death sometime before noon on Sept 5, 2003, and then did the same to Mr Tan when he returned from school two hours later.

The prosecution's case was that he killed them over a dispute over money - they had dug up evidence that Tiwary owed them money for rent.

Round two of the trial, which has been set for three weeks, will involve 20 witnesses.

It is understood that several witnesses from Singapore will also be travelling to Sydney to testify, though the relatives of the two murdered men have chosen not to go.

These witnesses will mainly be those who knew the three men during their time studying in Sydney at the University of New South Wales.

Tiwary is currently housed at the Long Bay Jail Complex, about 40 minutes drive from Sydney's central district, where the court is located.

His family, who will be in Sydney to attend the trial, has hired a Queen's Counsel from Australia to defend him.

In the first trial, Tiwary's lawyer was assigned by the state and it later emerged that it was the lawyer's first murder trial and he had less than three years' experience under his belt.

Tiwary's decision to take the stand this time round is expected to shed more light into what actually happened on the day of the murders.

None of the witnesses in the first trial saw what had happened in the flat before the police were called in.

Tiwary had maintained that he slept through the murders and had woken up to find his friends dead and had fled the apartment in fear.

Tiwary's lawyer from Singapore, Ramesh Tiwary, said: 'We hope to see a closure with this outcome as the families of the victims and everyone else need to move on with their lives.'

One of the murdered men's father, Mr Tan Wee Sea, who suffered a stroke last year, said the family would not be going for the re-trial.

'Of course I'm unhappy that there is another trial. This would probably never happen in Singapore,' said the 57-year-old.

ST Aug 31, 2009
Tiwary's re-trial starts
By Sujin Thomas

IN his opening address at the re-trial of Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary, Crown Prosecutor John Kiely gave the jury a summary of witness testimonies.

He was drawing attention to how Tiwary, who is charged with two counts of murder, behaved after he ran out of his flat at 109, Barker Street, to seek help from police officers and paramedics on September 15, 2003.

In nearly all accounts, Tiwary, then 23, was said to have been shaky and took time to answer questions posed to him.

That day, Tiwary's flatmates Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, were clubbed and stabbed to death in the apartment. Tiwary's baseball bat and a kitchen knife are believed to be the murder weapons.

Forensic examinations found Mr Tan's blood and strands of hair on them, but not Mr Tay's. Likewise, the only spots of blood found on Tiwary came from Mr Tan.

This is the second time the former engineering undergraduate is on trial for the murders of the two Singaporeans. All three were studying at the University of New South Wales.

On Monday, Tiwary looked confident as he sat in the dock, dressed in a black suit. He busily took notes during the proceedings and even engaged in friendly banter with court sheriffs during breaks, flashing a warm, broad smile.

His family members were absent from Sydney's King Street Courts, where the three-week trial is being held.

Crease lines on his forehead only began to show when Mr Kiely delved deeper into witness testimonies, summarising those of Tiwary's friends whom he had recounted the incident to in the weeks following the murders.

Tiwary had told them that he had been out on the day of the murders and came home to find his housemates dead. On the contrary, Tiwary said in his earlier police statement that he had been sleeping in his bedroom when he heard a commotion outside.

However, Mr Kiely cautioned the jury: 'People lie for various reasons. It does not mean that he is guilty. He may have been ashamed that he stayed in his room throughout the incident.'

The prosecution stressed that the apartment's monthly rent of AU$2,172.60 (S$2,630.25) - which the three men shared among themselves - is an important point in the case.

It alleges that Tiwary was not paying his share, going by notes found in the flat in Mr Tay's handwriting. The notes stated outstanding sums of money to him owed by Tiwary.

Mr Tay had been in charge of settling the rent each month, before collecting his housemates' share.

However, Mr Tan and Mr Tay were due to complete their studies and return to Singapore at the end of that semester, leaving Tiwary in the 'stressful situation' of taking on the rent himself, said Mr Kiely.

He also pointed out that both the dead men's wallets appeared intact and contained cash when police found them.

Mr Kiely said: 'It would appear that robbery was not a motive in this case.'

On Tuesday morning, the jury will be taken to the scene of the murders to get a clearer idea of the apartment's layout as well its surrounding areas. Video evidence of Tiwary being interviewed by the police will also be screened in court.

A total of 223 witnesses are due to take the stand during the trial.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/bre...0901-f6s4.html

Flatmates' deaths 'shocked' accused man
MARGARET SCHEIKOWSKI
September 1, 2009 - 5:59PM

A student who has denied murdering his two flatmates was embarrassed because he didn't leave his room to help them when he heard noises, a jury has been told.

In the defence's opening address, David Dalton SC said that explained why Ram Puneet Tiwary later lied to friends when he said he was not at the Sydney flat when they were murdered.

Tiwary, now 30, has pleaded not guilty in the NSW Supreme Court to murdering Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan, both 26, on September 15, 2003, at their Kingsford flat.

The three were Singaporeans, studying engineering at the nearby University of NSW.

The victims were stabbed and bludgeoned with a baseball bat.

On Tuesday, Mr Dalton said that one reason Tiwary was before the court was because he said he was asleep in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday in September, 2003.

"He was asleep in his room when his two friends and his two flatmates had been savagely and brutally beaten and killed," he said.

"But because he said he was asleep in his room that has given rise to suspicions."

Mr Dalton said he expected jurors would hear evidence that it was not unusual for Tiwary to be asleep in the middle of the day.

Another reason he was before the court was because of inconsistencies in what he told people about the way he discovered his friends and what ensued thereafter.

"On that issue, we will refer to what any human being will understand to be the sort of trauma, the sort of shock, he would be experiencing at that time," Mr Dalton said.

He said Tiwary told "untruths" to friends, but not to police, when he said he was out at the time of the murders.

But he referred to the "fairly human response" of Tiwary feeling "acute embarrassment" as a result of his not coming out of his room when he heard at least one friend being beaten.

Mr Dalton noted the crown alleged Tiwary had owed $5,000 in back rent and claimed his life was falling apart as a result of the debt and other matters.

"Ultimately, we will say to you how implausible it is that this man would kill his friends in that way, even if he did owe some back rent to Mr Tay," Mr Dalton said.

He said the jury would hear evidence of an unidentified car, with one man in it, leaving the scene.

Another witness reported seeing a different unidentified car parked in the laneway behind the units about 90 minutes before emergency services were called.

Further, Mr Dalton said two students would give evidence of seeing Mr Tan get into a car, near the university and near the units, about 25 minutes before Tiwary made the emergency call.

The car and its occupant, or occupants, had never been identified and Mr Dalton asked why Mr Tan got in shortly before he was murdered.

The trial is continuing before Justice Peter Johnson.

© 2009 AAP

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 2, 2009
Worst crime scene: Police
By Sujin Thomas

Detective Sergeant Philip Elliott (left) has seen many a dead body after 19 years in the job but the badly battered bodies of two Singaporean students murdered in 2003 in Sydney were the worst he had ever come across. --ST PHOTO: SUJIN THOMAS

SYDNEY - DETECTIVE Sergeant Philip Elliott has seen many a dead body after 19 years in the job but the badly battered bodies of two Singaporean students murdered in 2003 in Sydney were the worst he had ever come across.

Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan's head was 'deformed and extensively damaged', said the veteran detective on the stand on Wednesday.

Pieces of plastic, presumably from a newly-bought aluminium baseball bat which was used on him, were stuck to his head in a bloody mess of skin, bone and hair.

The impact of the swinging bat also sprayed several of Mr Tan's teeth, and the lenses of his spectacles, across the living room, where he is believed to have been initially attacked. The assault even flung droplets of Mr Tan's blood onto the ceiling.

Frothy blood had also spurted from three stab wounds to his neck, soaking his clothes when police found his body.

Sgt Elliott, who was among the first police officers to arrive at the murder scene, said: 'In my experience, I have not seen that amount of injury to a deceased's head as a result of an attack by a weapon.'

The other victim, Mr Tay Chow Lyang, also had injuries to his head and stab wounds in his neck, although his injuries were not as severe.

His left index finger was crushed while Mr Tan's hands were swollen and bruised - signs that both men had tried to fend off the attacks with their hands and arms.

A day after the 12-member jury was shown a video of the crime scene taken within hours of the police arriving at the apartment, Sgt Elliott also spoke at length about the blood stains discovered there. He said the stains suggest that Mr Tan had managed to somehow move from the living room where he was attacked to the end of a hallway where his body was later found.

There was also blood spatter on the wall near where Mr Tan was found, suggesting the murderer had attacked Mr Tan there as well. Mr Tay's body was found behind a two-seater couch in the living room.

Apu Neh thinks by staying at crime scene will make him look innocent?

Think motive, Apu Neh! Think motive, dumb fuck! Sign on some more!

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 3, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL
'Rattled, distressed'
By Sujin Thomas

The first thing Ram Puneet Tiwary told an emergency services operator on the telephone was that he needed help because there had been 'a murder' in his Sydney flat. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

SYDNEY - THE first thing Ram Puneet Tiwary told an emergency services operator on the telephone was that he needed help because there had been 'a murder' in his Sydney flat.

He then went on to describe to the operator what he had seen just outside his bedroom in the apartment he shared with Singaporeans Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26.

Heavily breathing, he stuttered: 'I think.. My friends are lying down outside. There's blood all over the place.' When the operator asked him what had happened, he frantically replied: 'I woke up and there was screaming outside.'

A voice recording of the '000' call made at about 2.20pm on September 15, 20003, was played in front of a tense New South Wales Supreme Court on Thursday.

As members of the 12-man jury busily took notes, Tiwary, 30, sat in the dock dressed in a black suit, with his head hung low and brow deeply furrowed.

During the call, which he said was made his bedroom, Tiwary is heard shouting expletives, when the operator puts him on call waiting to transfer him to another operator.

He later tells the operator that he had left his bedroom and found Tan lying in a pool of blood near the front door. He grabbed a softball bat, which he said was near Tan's body and went to the living room where he noticed that the rear door was open. The TV set was still on.

Closing the door, he ran to his room again, and barricaded himself behind the door with a black cabinet. Later on, when the operator told him that police were already outside his flat, he asked if he could go outside.

The operator suggested that he put down the softball bat first before leaving the building. He replied, stopping himself short: 'They're going to think.. Okay.'

Paramedics and police officers at the scene also took the stand on Thursday, describing Tiwary's state of mind when he approached them outside the flat. Almost all of them noticed his bloodied hands and said he was 'rattled', 'bewildered' and 'distressed'.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 6, 2009
Sydney double murder retrial
He didn't blame it on Chinese Triads
By Sujin Thomas

Sentenced to life imprisonment without reprieve, Tiwary got a second chance when an appeals court ruled that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury during the first trial. -- PHOTO: PETER MORRIS

SIX years on, the double murders of his flatmates in this Australian city - for which Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary is being retried - have lost none of their horror.

Sentenced to life imprisonment without reprieve, Tiwary got a second chance when an appeals court ruled that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury during the first trial.

This time round, there are 12 new people in the jury box, a different prosecutor - Mr John Keily - and a new formidable presence in the defence, Senior Counsel David Dalton.

There were grim faces during the first week of the hearing, while the crime scene was laid out - once again - in gruesomely graphic detail by the prosecution. Jury members frowned as they passed around sealed plastic bags containing the alleged murder weapons: A kitchen knife and an aluminium softball bat, both still bloodstained.

There was the seasoned police officer who reprised his testimony, describing the state of the bodies as the worst he had ever seen.

Accompanied by police officers, the judge and the lawyers, the 12 jury members were taken to view the flat in which the two young men were knifed and battered to death.

It is now repainted several times over and is accommodation to foreign graduate students who knew nothing of its tragic history.

The first few days of the hearing last week centred on Tiwary's reaction after finding his flatmates, Mr Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, dead in the apartment which they shared in the student-populated suburb of Kingsford.

This was culled from statements given by police officers, as well as paramedics, who arrived at the scene on the balmy afternoon of Sept 15, 2003.

On the stand, nearly all of them used words such as 'distressed', 'bewildered' and 'shaking' to describe Tiwary's demeanour as he ran towards them.

Tiwary's account is that as his flatmates were being brutally murdered, he cowered in his room, barricading himself behind the locked door with a cabinet.

Amidst a distinct lack of coverage of the on-going re-trial of Ram Puneet Tiwary for double murder, the latest we have of the scenario is:

1. The two murders were some hours apart.

2. Tiwary professed he was cowardly fortified in his room, venturing out only after the second murder.

3. Assuming that he had nothing to do with the murders, from the resulting brutality with which his room-mates were killed, one can assume motives which must have resulted in vituperations accompanying the violence, which Tiwary cannot have avoided overhearing.

4. Tiwary has had enough time to conjure a story, yes? He will be questioned on what transpired between the assailants and their victims, yes?

What do you think Tiwary will say in Court? This time he has chosen to take the stand, yes?

Tiwary's task is either very easy or very hard, depending on which side you're on.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 9, 2009
Never heard of dispute
By Sujin Thomas

The prosecutor trying to convict Tiwary, now 30, of the double murders had pinpointed the rent issue as the motive for the brutal murders on Sept 15, 2003. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

SYDNEY - IN THE days just before two Singaporean flatmates were murdered in a Sydney apartment, none of their friends or family sensed anything wrong.

Nor were they aware of any tension or disputes the two men had with their flat mate Ram Puneet Tiwary, who is now being retried for their murders, over rent or money.

The prosecutor trying to convict Tiwary, now 30, of the double murders had pinpointed the rent issue as the motive for the brutal murders on Sept 15, 2003.

Friends of the two dead men - Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 27, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 26 - told a New South Wales Supreme Court that they never complained about any money owed to them. The pair also never mentioned that they never owed anyone any money.

On Wednesday, Mr Chaw Bak You, an Australian permanent resident from Singapore, said the two men never argued with Tiwary.

Mr Chaw, 34, got to know the others in the household through Mr Tay, whom he became friends with in 1994 when they studied engineering together at the Singapore Polytechnic.

He said that the only time any mention of money came up was about a week before the murders. Mr Tay told him Tiwary had gone to their real estate agent's office to pay the rent of $2,172.60 a month.

'Ram said that he had gone to the real estate agent to pay the rent but had an argument with the agent and that rent would only be reflected in the other housemates' bank accounts a few days later,' Mr Chaw told the court. 'Somehow, Ram couldn't pay the rent.'

Mr Chaw, who had previously lived at the apartment before Tiwary moved in, graduated from university and returned to Singapore in 2002. In late July 2003, he returned to Australia when he got his permanent residency, and stayed at the Barker Street apartment for about a week before he found his own place.

Mr Tan's petite mother, Madam Chiew Lee Hua, 55, who also took the stand on Wednesday, said she had last spoken to her son over the telephone on Sept 10, five days before the murder.

Better some unidentified Chinese Triads than your obvious room-mate.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 10, 2009
Victim 'in car with Asians'
By Sujin Thomas

Ram Puneet Tiwary is now accused of murder. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

SYDNEY - ABOUT half an hour before he was murdered, Singaporean undergraduate Tony Tan Poh Chuan did something unusual.

Instead of walking home from the University of New South Wales or riding his bicycle home, as he usually did, the 27-year-old got into a car with a few Asians. Little else is known about the car, which was on the wrong side of the road, or its passengers.

But this much was clear: By 2.30pm on Sept 15, 2003, Mr Tan was dead in his apartment on Barker Street, a five-minute walk from where he was last seen.

Mr Tan's flatmate and fellow Singaporean, Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, was also found murdered in the flat.

Their flatmate, Ram Puneet Tiwary, 30, who claimed to have been asleep when they were bludgeoned and stabbed, is now accused of murder.

His lawyer, Senior Counsel David Dalton, had earlier raised questions as to whether the passengers and the driver of the car could have been involved in the deaths.

The lawyer told the court that the police never found the car, nor its driver and its passengers.

In court on Thursday, two friends who had been with Mr Tan on the afternoon of Sept 15 six years ago gave varying accounts of their brief encounter with him.

Mr Jonathan Choy and Mr Sean Murray told the court they were climbing up a steep flight of steps outside the lecture theatre when they saw Mr Tan.

Mr Choy said: 'He was powering through the stairs. He said 'hi' but didn't engage in a chat.'

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 11, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER RETRIAL
New flatmates were told a different story
By Sujin Thomas

Tiwary told the police at the time that he had been asleep during the attacks and had woken to find his flatmates dead in the blood-stained living room. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

SYDNEY - SIX months after the murders of his two flatmates, Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary opened up to his new flatmates at another apartment, telling them what had happened that morning in 2003.

However, the stories he told, sometime in March or April 2004, differed from what he had told the police.

He had told his new flatmates he had been out, and that he returned on the morning of Sept 15 that year to find Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, bludgeoned and stabbed to death.

But Tiwary told the police at the time that he had been asleep during the attacks and had woken to find his flatmates dead in the blood-stained living room.

During his opening address at Tiwary's murder retrial, his lawyer, Senior Counsel David Dalton, said Tiwary, currently in remand, felt embarrassed for staying in his room and not coming to the aid of his flatmates.

He said: 'He told untruths, not to the police, but to his friends.'

The murders took place in Flat 2 at 109, Barker Street, near the University of New South Wales, where all three were studying.

In a New South Wales Supreme Court on Friday, one of Tiwary's former flatmates from 39, Barker Street said the topic came up when she asked him why he had moved into their flat mid-way through the semester.

Tiwary, now 30, initially refused to talk. But when Australians Julia Mathams and Josephine Luk probed, he told them he had been the two dead men's flatmate.

The murders had been a hot topic on campus after students were informed of it via e-mail in the weeks following the two Singaporeans' deaths.

S’porean killed in Sydney got into an Asian woman’s car before death

Channel News Asia - Tuesday, September 15

SYDNEY: One of the two Singaporean students bludgeoned to death in Sydney in 2003 is alleged to have gotten into a car being driven by a young Asian woman shortly before his murder.

This was revealed in the ongoing trial of Ram Tiwary, who is accused of killing the two students.

The Singaporean who is accused of killing fellow students Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang, said that he was told by an acquaintance he named as Yong Wei, that Tan was seen getting into a white vehicle at the University of New South Wales.

The sighting was revealed by Tiwary during a video—taped interview recorded on the day of his arrest in May 2004 and played to the court during a hearing on Monday.

Tiwary said the Asian girl was described as having black hair, but he had no idea who she was. There may have been two men also in the car, which could have been a small—to—medium sized Toyota or Volkswagen, he added.

"As far as I know, none of his friends came to pick him up of drop him off," said Tiwary during Monday’s hearing.

He also recalled during the interview that the other murdered student had cancelled an appointment on the day of the murders "because he had something very important to do".

Tan and Tay were later found dead in the blood—spattered flat they shared with Tiwary, only a short distance from the university where they all studied.

Tiwary, who is now aged 30, has pleaded not guilty to their murders.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 15, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDERS TRIAL
'Tiwary stuttered; in shock'
By Sujin Thomas

Ram Puneet Tiwary's then-girlfriend told a New South Wales Supreme Court that Tiwary stuttered when he spoke, which was something he never does. --ST PHOTO: PETER MORRIS

AT THE time of the murders of Singaporeans Tay Chow Lyang and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, Ram Puneet Tiwary was supposed to have met his girlfriend.

But when he did not turn up at the University of New South Wales - where they had earlier planned to meet - at 2pm on Sept 15, 2003, she sent him an SMS.

He did not reply. Ten minutes later, she sent him another text message: 'I guess you are still sleeping. Bye.'

When she got him on the line minutes later, she realised something was wrong.

On Tuesday, which was the anniversary of the murders, Tiwary's then-girlfriend Elvira Metiljevic, an Australian, told a New South Wales Supreme Court that Tiwary stuttered when he spoke - something he never does.

She said that Tiwary had finished work at 6pm the evening before and came home to watch TV with Mr Tan and Mr Tay before going to bed sometime after 11pm. It was not unusual for Tiwary to be asleep in the afternoon, she said.

Tiwary said he had been asleep and woke up the next day to find Mr Tan and Mr Tay both bludgeoned and stabbed in neck.

Metiljevic, who is of Bosnian descent, met Tiwary in 2000 while both of them studied at the university. The pair became a couple sometime between February and March 2003.

'His voice was very soft. He sounded like his teeth were chattering. It sounded like he was in shock.'

Ms Metiljevic then left the campus and headed to the city with relatives.

Later that evening, she briefly spoke with Tiwary over the phone again. Without going into details, he told her that 'something serious had happened' and that he would tell her more the next day.

This guy is unbelievable!

How do you measure success with women? Must you be bonking one every other night? Hello, they were both married. Should they be sleeping around?

Tiwary "too ashamed" to reveal truth in Sydney murder case

Channel News Asia - Thursday, September 17

SYDNEY: A Singaporean, who is accused of killing two fellow students in a Sydney apartment they shared, said on Wednesday he told different stories about what happened because he was embarrassed to reveal the truth.

Ram Tiwary told police that he was asleep in the apartment when fellow Singaporeans Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang were beaten to death with a baseball bat in September 2003.

But afterwards, he told friends that he was out at the time and had returned home to find their bodies.

The reason, he said, was because he was too ashamed to admit that he had hid in his bedroom as he was afraid to confront the attacker.

Tiwary revealed in a taped interview played to the New South Wales Supreme Court that he felt bad about not going to the aid of his friends and he hated telling people the truth.

He agreed that being an experienced soldier belonging to the Singapore military only made his position worse.

Asked about the blood on his hands, shorts and feet, he explained that he had checked Tan’s pulse and the victim had coughed up blood.

Tiwary also revealed in the interview that the two victims were seen talking to a pretty Asian girl outside their flat two nights before the murders, which he claimed was odd because neither had much success with women.

According to a note found in Tiwary’s bedroom, both victims owed more than $500 each in rent.

There was also talk at Wednesday’s hearing of a mystery man named Andrew who was believed to have owed rent on the flat. But the defendant said he had no idea who Andrew was.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 21, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDERS RETRIAL
New evidence
By Sujin Thomas

New evidence has emerged in the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary (left) that one of the two dead Singaporean men frequently corresponded with a woman two months before the murders. --ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

In Sydney

NEW evidence has emerged in the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary that one of the two dead Singaporean men frequently corresponded with a woman two months before the murders.

Tiwary's lawyer Senior Counsel David Dalton tendered to a New South Wales supreme court on Monday, 22-pages of online chat messages between Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and a woman in Singapore identified as Ms Jasmine Tan.

The correspondence, using chat application ICQ, was from between June 16 and 30, 2003 - about two months before Mr Tay and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, were found murdered in the Sydney apartment they shared with Tiwary. Both men were violently bludgeoned and stabbed in the neck.

In a 2005 police statement, Ms Tan, then 28, said that she had met Mr Tay in 1995 while the pair studied engineering together at Singapore Polytechnic. They lost touch after graduating two years later but began contacting each other again either via e-mail or ICQ in 2002.

In one of the messages, Mr Tay said to Ms Tan: 'Ranger paying my rent this month...so got couple of hundred dollars.. What better way than to share my joy with you.'

Mr Tay, who was married, shipped a parcel of coffee to Ms Tan. Months before, he had also shipped a bouquet of flowers to her.

The prosecution argues that Tiwary committed the murders because of back rent, amounting to A$5,000, he allegedly owed Mr Tay.

Tiwary, who was studying in Australia under a Singapore Armed Forces scholarship, was a commando in the army who had undergone a military ranger course.

In the chat messages, Mr Tay repeatedly asked Ms Tan to visit him, even calling her a 'medusa and nymph rolled into one'.

Ms Tan, who was in a relationship at the time, said that she was going to be jobless soon and could not afford the trip.

Mr Tay continued: 'Come alone...cheaper, better...The more I think of you, the longer my horns grow.'

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 22, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER RETRIAL
Defence filing closing submissions today
Accused's lawyer shows court online exchanges between victim and woman in Spore two months before murders
By Sujin Thomas

The defence submitted 22 pages of chat messages between Mr Tay and a woman in Singapore but has yet to explain the info's relevance. -- PHOTO: COURTESY OF THE TAY FAMILY

SYDNEY - IN A courtroom surprise, new evidence has been submitted by the defence in the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary to show that one of the two dead Singaporean men had frequently corresponded with a woman two months before the murders.

Tiwary's lawyer, Senior Counsel David Dalton, tendered to a New South Wales Supreme Court on Monday 22 pages of online chat messages between Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and a woman in Singapore identified as Ms Jasmine Tan.

This was the first time that information about the private life of one of the victims had surfaced in court - on day 16 of the trial - and it was greeted with surprise by members of the jury.

Mr Dalton has yet to explain the relevance of the new information, but is expected to do so today when he gives his closing address.

The correspondence using chat application ICQ - retrieved by police from Mr Tay's computer - was from June 16 to 30, 2003.

It took place about two months before Mr Tay and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, were found murdered in the Sydney apartment they shared with Tiwary. Both men were violently bludgeoned and stabbed in the neck. Tiwary, 30, was originally sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders.

In a 2005 police statement, Ms Tan, then 28, said she had met Mr Tay in 1995 when the pair studied engineering together at Singapore Polytechnic. They lost touch after graduating two years later but began contacting each other again either via e-mail or ICQ in 2002.

In one of the messages, Mr Tay said to Ms Tan: 'Ranger paying my rent this month...so got couple of hundred dollars...What better way than to share my joy with you.'

Mr Tay, who was married, shipped a parcel of coffee to Ms Tan. Months before, he had also shipped a bouquet of flowers to her.
The prosecution argues that Tiwary committed the murders because of back rent, amounting to A$5,000, he allegedly owed Mr Tay.

Mr Dalton pointed out that Tiwary had told his friends that he had seen Mr Tay and Mr Tan speaking to an Asian girl outside their flat just two days before the murders. Tiwary said that was 'strange' of the two married men, because they were 'so straight'. Their friends said they were good students who rarely socialised.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 22, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDERS RETRIAL
A Defence Clutching at Straws
By Sujin Thomas

Ram Puneet Tiwary (left), 30, is accused of killing his Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, on Sept 15, 2003. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

In SYDNEY

HE WAS already a married man. She, too, had a boyfriend at the time and is now married to him.

Their online relationship came under further scrutiny on Tuesday at the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary, 30, who is accused of killing his Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, on Sept 15, 2003.

Tiwary's lawyer David Dalton suggested that Mr Tay may have had romantic links with a woman named Ms Jasmine Tan, whom he knew in Singapore.

On Monday, a New South Wales Supreme Court heard that Mr Tay and Ms Tan met in 1995 while both studied engineering at Singapore Polytechnic. They drifted apart after graduating two years later and reconnected again in 2002 either through e-mail or online chat application ICQ. Through ICQ, they talked almost every day.

Logs of their chats from June 16 to 30, 2003 - two months before the murders - were retrieved from Mr Tay's computer by police.

Mr Dalton also suggested that this could have caused a motive for someone to commit the murders.

No way, said the prosecution.

Crown prosecutor John Kiely said: 'I want to get away from any suggestion that on that day Ms Tan or her boyfriend had anything to do with the murders.'

He said that Australian immigration records showed that Ms Tan had never been to Australia while her then boyfriend last visited the country from Aug 7 to 18, 2002.

Why the series of ICQ chat messages was kept out of the previous trial in 2006 drew a blank from police officers on the stand.

Under cross-examination, Detective Senior Constable Frearson said that no enquiries were made into any connections Ms Tan or her husband may have had in Australia.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 23, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDERS RETRIAL
'Tiwary had motive'
By Sujin Thomas

Tiwary's motive had been his shortage of funds, back rent that his owed one of the dead men and the loss of his Singapore Armed Forces scholarship. --ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

HE had the motive, opportunity, and capacity to commit the cold-blooded murders of his two Singaporean flatmates in 2003.

So said the prosecution in its closing address of the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary which is now - after nearly four weeks - in its final stages.

Crown prosecutor John Kiely took pains to lay out arguments to support his case that Tiwary had killed Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, on Sept 15, 2003.

Tiwary, 30, was the only one - aside from the dead men - who was known to have been in the apartment on the day of the murders, he said.

He explained to the 12-man jury that Tiwary's motive had been his shortage of funds, back rent that his owed one of the dead men and the loss of his Singapore Armed Forces scholarship.

The question as to who 'Andrew' was - who had been listed on notes about rent payment found in the apartment - was also raised. Mr Kiely said he was 'invented' by Tiwary to ensure that the rent was split four ways.

E-mail correspondence between Mr Tay and Mr Tan referred to him as Tiwary's friend who was supposed to have moved into the apartment. Tiwary maintained in police interviews that he does not know of such a person.

Mr Kiely also said that both Mr Tay and Mr Tan had no connections with 'undesirable people' who dabble with drugs and alcohol.

He even debunked any suggestion that the killings was the work of an underworld group. The court had earlier heard that Tiwary had proposed to a friend that a mafia group had hit the wrong house.

Getting fired up, Mr Kiely said: 'If it was a killing by an organised crime group, do you think it would be done in the unit with weapons left behind?'

Nothing more than 'a bit of chit-chat'

THE spicy online chat log between murdered man Mr Tay Chow Lyang and his former schoolmate Ms Jasmine Tan was dismissed by the prosecution as being nothing more than 'a bit of chit-chat'.

On Wednesday, Crown prosecutor John Kiely said the suggestion that their relationship could have caused the murders was like 'stretching a long bow'.

Mr Kiely said: 'They might have been good mates but they never got into bed. It would be stretching a long bow to suggest that Mr Poh (Ms Tan's then boyfriend) might have seen those messages.'

On Monday, Tiwary's lawyer Senior Counsel Mr David Dalton tendered 22 pages of online ICQ chat messages painting romantic links between the pair. He had suggested that this may have been motive for the murders.

Police officers on the stand looked stumped when asked by Mr Dalton if they had enquired about any connections Ms Tan and her then boyfriend may have had with anyone in Australia.

'If someone would have been murdered for having a chat, you'd have half of Sydney bludgeoned to death,' added Mr Kiely with a trail of guffaws echoing through the court room.

He also reiterated that Ms Tan and her then boyfriend were in Singapore at the time of the murders even if there was a any 'ramping up' between her and Mr Tay.

Mr Kiely told the jury: 'You can put aside any suggestion that it was Jasmine or Poh.'

See? I told you they would try to rope in the Triads!
If you give them space, they'll bring samurai swords into the picture.
You mean Red Beret no class?

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 24, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER RETRIAL
Tiwary had 'motive, opportunity'
Prosecutor also debunks notion that crime was linked to 'mafia group'
By Sujin Thomas

HE had the motive, opportunity and capacity to commit the cold-blooded murders of his two Singaporean flatmates in 2003.

So said the prosecution in its closing address during the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary which is now - after nearly four weeks - in its final stages. Tiwary is accused of killing Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, on Sept 15, 2003.

Crown Prosecutor John Kiely noted that Tiwary, 30, was the only one - aside from the dead men - known to have been in the apartment on the day of the murders. He argued that Tiwary's motive had been a shortage of funds, back rent that he owed Mr Tay and the loss of his Singapore Armed Forces scholarship.

Mr Kiely told the 12-person jury that both Mr Tay and Mr Tan had no connections with 'undesirable people' who dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He said: 'There were no drugs, no cannabis, no alcohol even. Nothing was detected.'

He debunked any suggestion that the killings were the doings of an underworld group, which the court heard that Tiwary had proposed to a friend, saying that a mafia group had hit the wrong house. Getting fired up, Mr Kiely said: 'If it was a killing by an organised crime group, do you think it would be done in the unit with weapons left behind?'

As to the mysterious car which was said to have picked up Mr Tan after a lecture minutes before he was murdered, Mr Kiely said witness accounts were 'flagrantly different'. One witness, Mr Jonathan Choy, described the car to be an older, white car with two Asians inside. Another student, Mr Sean Murray, said it was a more recent blue model with three occupants.

Mr Kiely said: 'There is not the slightest suggestion that Mr Tan had any fear of those people in the car. There was no compulsion by him to go near the car unless he wanted to.' They may not have come forward because they did not want to get involved or were illegals, he said.

Mr Kiely pointed out that Tiwary had the opportunity to commit the crimes as he claimed to have slept through the attacks, and woken up to find his flatmates dead. There were no signs of a robbery or forced entry into the apartment.

The prosecutor claimed that Tiwary had killed Mr Tay after Mr Tan had left for a lecture at the university. Mr Kiely said: 'There was no way he could take on both of them at the same time. So he split them up and took them on one at a time.'

Mr Tan was attacked when he returned home about two hours later. Mr Kiely said: 'What's a killer doing for two hours in the unit and not checking Tiwary's room? You think he'd be sitting outside watching TV and hoping that Ram Tiwary doesn't catch him?'

Last pitch from the Defence today before the Judge directs his Jury

Channel News Asia - Thursday, September 24

SYDNEY: The prosecution has begun its summing up in the trial of Singaporean student Ram Tiwary who is charged with murdering his two flatmates in Sydney, Australia in 2003.

The prosecution spent most of Wednesday explaining to the jury why they should convict Tiwary of bludgeoning to death Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang in the apartment they all shared.

Crown prosecutor John Kiely claimed the defendant had the motive, the opportunity and the capacity to kill the two men.

Tiwary was badly behind with his rent, and Tay was putting pressure on him to pay up.

Apart from financial problems, Tiwary's student life was also falling apart.

He had lodged false exam papers and had not paid the University of New South Wales for his first semester of the year, despite receiving the money from the Singapore army, which was sponsoring him.

Two days before the killings, Tiwary bought the baseball bat, which was used to beat his flatmates to death.

But he knew he could not take on both men at the same time.

So he waited for Tan to leave the flat in order to take Tay by surprise while he was sitting at his computer.

He clubbed him over the head and then waited two hours for Tan to return from the university.

He then attacked the second man, who tried to escape but was overcome by the savagery of the blows, Mr Kiely asserted.

To make sure both were dead, Tiwary stabbed his two flatmates in the neck, the prosecution alleged.

The jury was also reminded how composed the defendant was when he was interviewed by police only a couple of hours after the murders.

He was surprisingly calm in view of what he had just seen.

Yet there were giveaways in the emergency call he made shortly after the killings.

He told the operator his two friends were dead. But how did he know, the prosecutor asked.

The defence is due to begin its final submission on Thursday.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 24, 2009
Ranger cannot act, kenna captured by enemy how?
By Sujin Thomas

Ram Puneet Tiwary's (left) lawyer gave a dramatic performance, calling his client's '000' call to the Australian emergency services: The 'black box' recording of the case. --ST PHOTO: PETER MORRIS

SUMMING up for the defence, Ram Puneet Tiwary's lawyer gave a dramatic performance, calling his client's '000' call to the Australian emergency services: The 'black box' recording of the case.

After playing the seven-minute audio recording in a New South Wales Supreme Court, Senior Counsel David Dalton told the jury: 'Is that acting? It doesn't matter what I think. It just makes me angry.'

'What's gone on in the investigations? This is the real thing. This tape demonstrates - I can't even believe I'm saying it - that he is innocent.'

The fiery start to his closing address came minutes after Crown prosecutor John Kiely finished presenting his arguments on Thursday morning.

Tiwary is accused of killing his two Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the Barker Street apartment they shared. All three were students at the nearby University of New South Wales when the murders occured on September 15, 2003.

In the '000' call, made at about 2.20pm that day, Tiwary stuttered and breathed heavily as he explained to the operator what he had seen.

When his call was transferred to another operator, he is heard shouting expletives.

Mr Dalton said: 'You'll pick up his demeanour and how anxious he is particularly when he is transferred. He doesn't know what's going on.'

Later in the call, the operator asked Tiwary if his flatmates are unconscious. He replied: 'There's blood all over. I can't even tell.'

Tiwary then told the operator that he was not stepping outside room while mumbling: 'I should've checked. I didn't.'

Mr Dalton said: 'He realised it was inappropriate of him not to do that. He reflected upon it and then went out.'

Channel News Asia - Friday, September 25

Judge summing up today

SYDNEY : In Australia, the New South Wales Supreme Court has been told that the case against Ram Tiwary is based on a flawed investigation.

The Singaporean is accused of killing his two flatmates.

In summing up the case for the defence, Tiwary’s lawyer David Dalton claimed there had been a litany of mistakes in the police investigation.

The video of Tiwary’s arrival at the police station on the day of the murder had been lost.

In addition, there was no sign of Tay Chow Lyang’s blood on the baseball bat or knife allegedly used to kill him, which suggested there might have been another weapon. The defence asked where was that weapon.

The defence also brought up the emergency phone call Tiwary made to the ambulance service. Mr Dalton said that the recorded conversation, which was played to the jury, proved that the defendant was not acting.

The defence lawyer added: "Just listen to Tiwary breathing if you think he is acting.

"The tape demonstrates his innocence as clear as day."

Mr Dalton suggested that if Tiwary had not gone back to the flat to check if the victims were breathing — as asked by the emergency operator — the defendant probably would not have been there.

The defence also ruled out debt being a motive for the murder.

The defence concluded that even if he had owed money, it would not have caused a young man of Tiwary’s character to commit such a crime.

Tiwary, who was on a scholarship to the University of New South Wales provided by the Singapore Army, has pleaded not guilty to murdering his flatmates Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang in September 2003.

The judge is expected to begin his summing up on Friday, with the jury likely to be sent out to consider their verdict on Monday.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 25, 2009
'CSI not thorough woh!'
By Sujin Thomas

RAM Puneet Tiwary's lawyer told the jury of 'flawed police investigations' in which forensic officers failed to check for saliva in the blood found on his client.

Earlier in the retrial, forensic biologist Virginia Friedman had said that blood could be tested for saliva.

But that was not done in this case.

Senior Counsel David Dalton said: 'The police did not have the forensic lab check for saliva in the blood. It was just another mistake, was it?'

In explaining to police how he ended up with blood on his hands and feet, Tiwary had said that his flatmate Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, had coughed up blood onto him when he checked him for signs of life.

Mr Dalton continued with the closing address he began on Thursday with a fiery start.

Tiwary, 30, is accused to brutally bludgeoning and stabbing his Singaporean flatmates Mr Tan and Mr Tay Chow Lyang in the Sydney apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003. All three were students at the nearby University of New South Wales.

Mr Dalton also touched on the testimonies of three medical experts who had taken the stand, reading through lengthy transcripts of their cross-examination.

All but one had said that Mr Tan could have coughed blood even if he was not breathing or was unconscious.

Forensic pathologist Johan DuFlou said that it was not possible for Mr Tan to have coughed up blood in Tiwary's first trial in 2006.

On the stand this time round, he conceded that it was a possibilty.

Channel News Asia - Friday, September 25

Judge now expected to sum up Monday

SYDNEY: The jury in the trial of Singaporean Ram Tiwary has been urged to acquit him. Summing up, the defence on Friday accused police of failing to keep an open mind in their investigation of the murder of Tiwary's two flatmates six years ago.

It was September 2003 when the bodies of Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang were found in their apartment, close to the University of New South Wales. Both had been clubbed to death with a baseball bat.

News of the horrific murders shocked fellow students at the university, which is attended by thousands of overseas students, many of them from Asia.

Six months later, Ram Tiwary, who was on a scholarship from the Singapore army, was charged with their murder. Although he was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, he won an appeal.

The re-trial, which began about four weeks ago at the New South Wales Supreme Court, heard how Tiwary, who is now 30, had told police he was asleep in the flat at the time of the murders.

But his story was at odds with the account he gave his friends who were told he came home to find the blood-soaked bodies of his two flatmates.

The defendant explained that he had lied because he was too ashamed to admit he had not gone to the aid of his dead friends. He also claimed the blood that was found on his feet and clothing must have got there when he checked Tan's pulse and the victim coughed up blood.

Crown Prosecutor John Kiely said Tiwary had the motive, the opportunity and the capacity to kill the two men. He was badly behind with his rent and his student life was falling apart.

But there were also claims that there had been a litany of mistakes in the police investigation.

The judge is expected to begin his summing up on Monday. Tiwary's family members, who have spent much of the past month in Sydney supporting him, should find out next week whether he will walk free or spend much of the rest of his life behind bars.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 28, 2009
RAM TIWARY TRIAL
Defence, in closing, says no back rent woh
By Sujin Thomas

Senior Counsel David Dalton (left) raised doubt on the interpretation of a police fraud expert of a note found in Tiwary's room, saying that someone giving evidence in a case like this should be very careful in presenting it.

SYDNEY - IN CLOSING his case on Monday, Ram Puneet Tiwary's lawyer challenged the prosecution's notion of back rent as the motive for murder.

Dismissing it, Senior Counsel David Dalton raised doubt on the interpretation of a police fraud expert of a note found in Tiwary's room. He said: 'Someone giving evidence in a case like this should be very careful in presenting it.'

Earlier in the trial, Mr John Fogarty, a trained accountant, took to the stand saying that a handwritten note found in Tiwary's room reflected money he owed his flatmate.

Tiwary, 30, is accused of killing his two Singaporean flatmates, Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan in the apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003.

In the note, believed to be written by Mr Tay, a series of figures totalling A$5,045 (S$6,190) is reflected next to Tiwary's name. The prosecution had submitted that Tiwary committed the murders as he could not afford to pay Mr Tay the amount.

The arrears went as far back as December 2002 - when Tiwary first moved into the Barker Street flat. Tiwary has maintained in police interviews that the sum had already been paid to Mr Tay.

Mr Dalton said: 'If it was a debt, that would mean Mr Tay carried Mr Tiwary's rent all the way from when he moved in. Why would he do that?'

If it were indeed true, Mr Dalton said that Mr Tay never complained about it to anyone, including his wife. Instead, he made an issue of a previous flatmate's outstanding debt of A$176 in utility bills.

Another handwritten document found in the house reflected a sum of A$1,148 owed to Mr Tay by Tiwary.

Last week, the prosecution closed by telling the jury that Tiwary was the only person, aside from the dead men, known to have been in the house at the time of the murders.

Tiwary had told police that he was asleep and woke up when he heard a commotion outside. There were no signs of a robbery or forced entry into the apartment.

Crown prosecutor Mr John Kiely suggested that Tiwary had killed Mr Tay after Mr Tan had left for a lecture at the university. Mr Kiely said that Tiwary had fabricated his account of what happened when questioned by police.

Circumstantial evidence? Or would you prefer the possibility of lightning hitting the same spot twice?

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 29, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDERS RETRIAL
Prosecution's case built 'wholly on circumstantial evidence'
By Sujin Thomas

Tiwary (left) is accused of killing his two Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003. --ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

SYDNEY - OVER four hours on Tuesday, the judge in the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary took pains to explain to the jury where their focus should lie in arriving at a verdict.

Justice Peter Johnson honed in on this key point: The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for Tiwary to be found guilty.

He said: 'Guesswork or strong suspicions are not enough. The real issue is whether he was the one who committed the murders.'

The jury will be expected to return separate verdicts on the two murder charges against Tiwary.

As Justice Johnson spoke, the 12-member jury listened attentively, taking notes and passing glances at Tiwary who sat alone in the dock directly across from them.

Tiwary is accused of killing his two Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003. All three were studying at the University of New South Wales.

The judge also told the jury to rid their minds of any prejudice. 'You must put emotions entirely out of your mind. Approach your task in a dispassionate way without emotion and sympathy,' he said.

He spent time explaining that the prosecution's case relies 'wholly on circumstantial evidence'.

He also touched on the arguments laid out by both sides of the bar table, stressing that the prosecution had no obligation to prove a motive in a criminal trial.

The prosecution claims that Tiwary killed his flatmates over back rent of about A$5,045.

However, motive is an 'issue' in this trial, and it is relevant for the jury to consider in its decision, he said.

Justice Johnson also said that Tiwary is not obligated to give evidence in the trial as he bears no onus of proof.

He said: 'The silence of the accused may not be used against him. You must not speculate what might have been said in evidence if the accused had given it.'

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Oct 2, 2009
Tiwary trial in Sydney
Jury given until Tuesday to reach unanimous decision on whether lightning can strike the same spot twice within a matter of 2 hours
By Sujin Thomas

After 14 hours of deliberation, the jury of the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary (left) has still not reached a unanimous verdict. --ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK

AFTER 14 hours of deliberation, the jury of the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary has still not reached a unanimous verdict.

On Friday, the judge proposed coming to a majority verdict instead, in which 11 out of the 12 jurors must reach the same decision.

A majority verdict, which can be ordered only after eight hours of jury deliberation, minimizes the possibility of a hung jury.

Both sides of the bar table instead urged Justice Peter Johnson to give the jury more time. A unanimous verdict is ideal as a majority verdict

Crown prosecutor Mr John Kiely said: 'They should have all the time to consider all the evidence. An order for a majority verdict might put them in a position to rush.'

Tiwary is accused of killing his Singaporean flatmates Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003. He faces two murder charges, each carrying a life imprisonment penalty.

Justice Johnson told the New South Wales Supreme Court that he will order a majority verdict if the jury is unlikely to reach a unanimous decision by Tuesday.

The court will not sit on Monday as it is a public holiday in Sydney.

On Thursday afternoon, the jury sent a note to the judge saying: 'Can you please give us some direction to relieve this deadlock?'

No mention was made in court of how many jurors could not agree.

Justice Johnson then ordered a 'Black' direction, which in Australia, is an order for the jury to talk it over before considering their vote if there is a minority holding out.

He said: 'It is often that juries are able to agree in the end if they are given more time to examine the evidence.'

Among the evidence, the jury will have to look into the statements and testimonies of over 50 witnesses, as well as about eight hours of video and audio recordings.

Now just what did Lee Kuan Yew say about Jury Trial v Bench Trial?

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Oct 6, 2009
Majority decision finds Tiwary still guilty of double murder
By Sujin Thomas

Tiwary faces a penalty of life imprisonment on each of the two murder charges. -- ST PHOTO: PETER MORRIS

THE jury in the retrial of Ram Puneet Tiwary on Tuesday found him guilty by a majority verdict after failing to reach a unanimous decision.

Sentencing is set for Nov 13. Tiwary's lawyers gave immediate notice of appeal.

Tiwary, 29, is accused of killing his Singaporean flatmates Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, who were violently bludgeoned and stabbed in the apartment they shared on Sept 15, 2003. He faces a penalty of life imprisonment on each of the two murder charges.

Justice Peter Johnson told the court last week he would order a majority verdict if the jury was unlikely to reach a unanimous decision by Tuesday. This would remove the inconvenience of a hung jury or retrial.

The 12-man jury has been deliberating for more than 17 hours since last Tuesday afternoon before reaching a verdict. A majority verdict can be ordered if the jury cannot come to a decision after having deliberated for at least eight hours. Under such a verdict, a decision can be made if 11 jurors reach a common verdict.

Last Thursday, a note handed to Justice Johnson read: 'Can you please give us some direction to relieve this deadlock.'

Today being World Kindness Day, Friday the 13th some more etc etc, sentencing also postponed for Ram Puneet Tiwary to December 17.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Nov 13, 2009
Crown prosecutor 29 page written submission pushes for life imprisonment
By Sujin Thomas

THE lawyer of convicted killer Ram Puneet Tiwary did little to mitigate his client's position in a New South Wales Supreme Court on Friday morning.

Senior Counsel David Dalton did not make any submissions on sentence, but said that his client 'maintains his innocence'.

Recounting what he had said during the half-hour hearing, Mr Dalton told The Straits Times: 'Mr Tiwary believes that whoever committed the offence deserves the most serious of punishments.'

The hearing was expected to go on for a day.

Tiwary, 30, was convicted on Oct 6 after a 26-day retrial of murdering his two Singaporean Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the flat they shared on September 15, 2003.

In contrast, Crown prosecutor Mr John Kiely made a 29-page written submission to the court pushing for the maximum sentence for murder, which is life imprisonment.

Tiwary will be sentenced on Dec 17.

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Dec 17, 2009
Tiwary jailed 48 years

Tiwary was arrested for the double murder in May 2004. -- PHOTO: RICK STEVENS FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

Convicted murderer Ram Puneet Tiwary was jailed a total of 48 years in a New South Supreme Court on Thursday for the murders of his two Singaporean flatmates in 2003.

Tiwary, 30, was convicted on Oct 6 of murdering Singaporeans Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in the flat they shared on Sept 15, 2003.

During the hearing in a Sydney court which lasted an hour, Justice Peter Johnson passed a sentence of 25 years' jail for Tay's murder and 30 years' jail - with no parole - for Tan's murder.

He ordered the heftier sentence to commence only in 2012. This means that Tiwary will only be released in 2042.

During the retrial which ended in October, the court heard accounts of what Tiwary told police on the day that Mr Tay and Mr Tan were found murdered in their flat. He said that he had been asleep in his bedroom and woke up when he heard a commotion outside.

He emerged and found both his flatmates dead, covered in blood. Both men had been bludgeoned with a softball bat and stabbed multiple times in the neck. All three had been studying at the University of New South Wales. Tiwary was arrested for the double murder in May 2004.

Remember what I said about lightning not hitting the same spot twice in a matter of hours or days, or I'd have won Lotto America?

Is Australian Justice so much better or what despite the Jury Trial system they have? They have kangaroos in the outback, but they haven't been allowed into the Courtroom.

In comparison, the sentence by the Singapore Court Bench Trial system of the double murder by Michael McCrea leaves much to be desired....

Home
Singapore News

Ram Tiwary sentenced to maximum of 48 years in jail
By Roger Maynard, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 17 December 2009 1259 hrs

SYDNEY: Singaporean student Ram Tiwary, found guilty of murdering two of his flatmates in Australia, has been sentenced to a maximum of 48 years in jail.

He was given 25 years for the murder of Tay Chow Lyang and 30 years for the death of Tony Tan Poh Chuan. The latter sentence will start from 2012.

With parole and time already served, the earliest Tiwary can expect to be released is 2042.

It was the climax to a murder investigation which began more than six years ago when the bodies of Singaporean students Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang were found in the apartment they shared with Tiwary.

Both young men had been clubbed to death with a baseball bat. The horrific nature of the killings sent shock waves through the nearby University of New South Wales, where many of the students were also Asian.

Initially, there were fears the murders were racially motivated. But eight months later in a surprise breakthrough, police charged their flatmate Tiwary with their deaths.

Then 23, Tiwary was on a scholarship awarded to him by the Singapore Armed Forces. Tiwary protested his innocence, but was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, an appeal court later ordered a re-trial on the grounds that the judge had misdirected the jury.

The second trial, which lasted 26 days, again found Tiwary guilty. On Thursday, he was told he could expect to spend the next 33 years of his life behind bars.

The judge said both murders were violent and savage, which elevated the gravity of the crime. In the case of Tan, the second victim, the judge said it was not a spontaneous attack but rather, an execution to prevent him from giving evidence against the offender.

The prosecution earlier claimed that Tiwary had the "motive, opportunity and capacity" to carry out the murders. The fact that he also owed Tay several thousand dollars in back rent might also have provided a motive.

Tiwary's relatives, who earlier admitted they were still "terribly distraught", were not in court on Thursday. Relatives of the dead men were also not present.

However, the convicted Singaporean is unlikely to let things rest. His defence team would not confirm whether he is likely to appeal, but Tiwary's courtroom demeanour suggested he was unmoved by the length of his sentence. He offered no response before or after the sentence was handed down.

- CNA/yb

So the punishment he received for Tay’s murder remained unchanged — a concurrent 25 years’ jail term.

For killing Tan, Tiwary was jailed 40 years, compared to life imprisonment without parole — the punishment he received in the 2006 trial.

The New South Wales Supreme Court ordered that the shorter jail term be backdated to 2004 when Tiwary was arrested and charged.

It also ordered that the longer jail sentence start only in 2012.

That means he will be jailed at least 38 years before he is eligible for parole; otherwise he could spend up to a maximum of 48 years behind bars.

He could have been jailed for life on each of the charges.

In sending him to a Sydney jail yesterday, Justice Peter Johnson said he was not convinced that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed for Tan’s murder.

Under the New South Wales Crimes Act, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment will spend his whole life behind bars.

Justice Johnson said: “The objective seriousness of this crime lies well above the middle of the range of objective seriousness. It lies close to, but not at the point where a life sentence ought be imposed.”

He said that he acknowledged the “dreadful sense of loss” by the families of the two men who were months away from completing their university studies.

“Instead, they were both cut down and beaten to death in savage murders which on evidence before the court, could not relate in any way to the conduct of either of them,” he added.

Justice Johnson said: “The offender has shown no contrition or remorse for either crime.”

Tiwary will be filing an appeal against the conviction through his lawyer, Senior Counsel David Dalton.

Tiwary’s cousin, Ramesh Tiwary, told The Straits Times: “We believe that he is innocent and that the evidence shows that he is innocent.”

“The jury’s decision was against the weight of this evidence.”

excuse me, are you a whistle-blower?

2010-06-08T15:18:00.000+08:00

When my old man went to meet his maker on 31st of January, 1995, he didn't kick the bucket the usual way. His property was disposed of just before that. Neither did he consent to the sale nor did he receive the proceeds. He was then expired ASAP to put a lid on the wrongdoings.

I was around to witness the fraud and expiration as they unfolded. Before I could figure out how to put a handle on the situation, the shit hit the fan at full throttle. The shit has stuck with the fan ever since.

'Incentives needed to draw out genuine whistle-blowers in Singapore?' Better to gun for regime change. Without which it'll simply be barking up the wrong tree. Until then, only foolhardy steam engines need apply.

ST Aug 19 2006
By Azrin Asmani

Who's a genuine whistle-blower and who's just a troublemaker with an axe to grind? That question was the hot talking point among corporate governance experts yesterday.

The issue was central to a panel discussion involving lawyers, auditors and corporate forensic specialists aimed at devising ways to protect staff who blow the lid on wrongdoings in their companies.

Staying anonymous was seen as providing a certain amount of protection for whistle-blowers against the risk of losing their job or even defamatory lawsuits from their employers as a result of their allegations.

But while that may solve the problem on one level, the experts felt that anonymous complaints could hinder implicating the real wrongdoers, especially those at top management.

"If such cases go to court, and even if there's valid truth behind the allegations, we aren't able to call the anonymous whistle-blower as witness," said Mr Cavinder Bull, a partner at Drew & Napier.

He agreed with the other panelists that having the right "incentives" in place should generate the "right type" of whistle-blowers - those who would speak up truthfully.

Such incentives include measures to protect the identity of the whistle-blowers and the confidentiality of their information.

"Truth is the best defense against defamation," Mr Bull added.

Yesterday's discussion was co-organized by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and business journal Smart Investor.

Entitled 'How do we protect whistle-blowers in the absence of legislation?' the discussion was made relevant, given that more companies in Singapore are formalizing whistle-blowing programs.

Corporate whistle-blowing has become a hot topic recently after a spate of corporate scandals, both here and overseas. The most notable one was at energy trader Enron in the United States, where a whistle-blower in 2001 shed light on massive fraud at the firm.

Apart from providing incentives, most participants yesterday also believed in putting in place penalties to weed out complaints made by those with an axe to grind.

But as Mr John Lim, a strong proponent of corporate governance here noted, companies should have the right resources to investigate allegations made by employees.

Mr Lim, the president of the Singapore Institute of Directors, suggested that firms hire more auditors with forensic skills, rather than channel complaints to departments ill-equipped to handle such cases, a failing widely observed in Singapore.

"They are able to do cursory investigations, but may not be able to go further," he said.

However, panelist Peter Coleman, from Deloitte & Touché Financial Advisory Services, believed that such work should be done by external experts who are better equipped.

Mr Coleman, the director of the firm's forensic services section, related instances in which employees were more comfortable lodging complaints with or highlighting possible fraud to outsiders than to those within their company for fear of being ostracized.

Mr Chad Olsen, of corporate forensic specialists Hill & Associates, concluded: "Whistle-blowing is not a new concept. The issue is how we manage it, without the legislative backing, while protecting the interests of both the employee and the employer."

Steven Irvine
Finance Asia
Oct 4, 2006

The market was shocked on Friday when Morgan Stanley announced that its Asia economist, Andy Xie, had resigned.

With Morgan Stanley’s bonus period only two months away, it looked like a very strange time for the Shanghai-born Xie to leave the firm.

The Hong Kong rumor mill quickly began speculating as to why Xie had left. Attentions have focused on an email that Xie penned on September 18.

I participated in the panels on Commodity (sic) and China-India and in some obligatory dinner parties. On Friday night the Singapore prime minister invited the speakers at the meeting that the Singapore government organized. Trichet, Larry Summers, Paul Volker (sic) Chuck Price, the finance ministers of ASEAN countries were there. No government official from China was there ... guess I was there to make it look like China was represented.

The dinner was turned into an Oprah with PM Lee Hsien Loong (sic) at the center. The topic was on the future of globalization. People fawned on him like a prince. Of course, he is. There are two reigning princes in the world that the Davos crowd kisses up to, Jordan and Singapore. The Davos crowd are Republican on economic issues and democratic on social issues. Somehow they manage to put aside their moral misgivings and kiss up to Lee Hsien Loong and Abdullah.

I tried to find out why Singapore was chosen to host the conference. Nobody knew. Some thought it was a strange choice because Singapore was so far from any action or the hot topic of China and India. Mumbai or Shanghai would have been a lot more appropriate. ASEAN has been a failure. Its GDP in nominal dollar terms has not changed for 10 years. Singapore’s per capita income has not changed either at $25,000. China’s GDP in dollar terms has tripled during the same period.

I thought the questioners were competing with each other to praise Singapore as the success story of globalization. Actually, Singapore’s success came mainly from being the money laundering center for corrupt Indonesian businessmen and government officials. Indonesia has no money. So Singapore isn’t doing well. To sustain its economy, Singapore is building casinos to attract corrupt money from China.

These western people didn’t know what they were talking about. Aside from the nauseating pleasantries some useful information came out of it. Trichet sounded very bullish on euro-zone economy (sic). He noted that euro-zone was catching up with the US in growth rate (sic) and talked about further gain in 2007. His tone was much more bullish than our house view. As Japan is surprising on the downside, I don't see how the rise of euro-yen could be stopped.

Larry Summers and Paul Volker (sic) were very worried about the US economy. As you probably know, Alan Greenspan is talking the same way. At the CLSA conference last week, he talked like one of his critics. There is fear of a US collapse. Many Americans think that an RMB reval (sic) would save the US. This is just a dream, in my view.

Most were worried about the future of globalization due to income inequality. As average workers in the west are not seeing wage increase (sic), they may vote against globalization. I thought that they were understating the benefit from cheap consumer goods. However, as inflation comes back, it does diminish the benefits for western consumers.

No-one was worried about the growth outlook for China and India. The Indian Planning Minister was very bullish, talking about 9% forever.

My sense is that policymakers are relaxed (sic) about the short-term economic outlook but anticipate a US collapse at some point. Americans think that RMB reval could save the US. So they would keep pressuring China."

Andy Xie
Morgan Stanley

Observer News Service
By Tom Parfitt

In a killing that sent shock waves across Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, the courageous journalist who did most to uncover the Kremlin's dirty war in Chechnya, was assassinated in her Moscow apartment building on Saturday. Her body was found slumped in an elevator next to a Makarov pistol and four casings.

Politkovskaya, 48, was a constant critic of the Kremlin and her murder will throw suspicion on the security services and the pro-Moscow regime that now holds sway in Chechnya. The London Observer is reporting that she was half way through writing a book which, according to her agent, included her theories on why the Russian state wanted her dead. Last night, about 70 journalists gathered at cordons outside the entrance hall to Politkovskaya's white granite apartment block in central Moscow. The city's chief prosecutor rushed to the scene.

A tall, elegant figure with wire-grey hair and black clothes, she was recognized across the world for her principled stand against two brutal wars prosecuted by Moscow in Chechnya, which left hundreds of thousands dead, injured or missing. Her death comes two days after one of her most hated opponents, pro-Moscow Prime Minister of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, celebrated his 30th birthday, and on the day of Vladimir Putin's 57th birthday, prompting speculation that one of her enemies may have served up the assassination as a present. Yulia Latynina, a newspaper commentator, said: 'All her publications of the last few months were about Kadyrov. Politkovskaya hated him. And two days ago was his birthday. From here can only be one motive.'

There seemed little doubt her death was connected with her writing. 'I believe that this was a political assassination. She was a bold woman, who had many enemies,' said veteran rights campaigner Lyudmila Alexeyeva, head of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Oleg Orlov, head of the Russian human rights centre Memorial, said: 'We are all shocked by what has happened. Obviously, this is an attempt to shut up an honest and independent journalist. She had been threatened repeatedly. It is a serious loss for civil society, journalism, and Russia as a whole.'

Politkovskaya's enemies had threatened her with death on numerous occasions and she claimed to have survived a poisoning attempt. Last night police were hunting a thin, young man in a baseball cap seen close the scene of the murder, which took place at about 4.30pm local time.

While her critics accused her of being partisan in her reports on the brutality of Russian federal forces, Politkovskaya did not hold back from criticizing the Chechen rebels, who resorted to increasingly brutal terror attacks in recent years. Her specialty, however, was exposing the horror, corruption and chaos wrought on civilian victims of the first war in Chechnya from 1994 to 1996 and the one that followed from 2000 onwards.

Her articles for the bi-weekly Novaya Gazeta won numerous awards and she wrote two books about Chechnya, A Dirty War and A Small Corner of Hell - plus a highly critical political biography of President Vladimir Putin. She also wrote several dispatches for The Observer's sister paper, the Guardian.

During the Beslan school siege in 2004 she tried to travel to southern Russia to negotiate with the rebels holding the school, but mysteriously fell ill, leading her to suspect she had been poisoned to prevent an intervention that could have embarrassed the Kremlin. As the second Chechen war turned from a full scale conflict into skirmishing between rebels and pro-Moscow forces, Politkovskaya turned her ire on the former rebel who became Prime Minister this year, Ramzan Kadyrov.

Peter Preston, former chairman of the International Press Institute, and a British media commentator, said: 'Anna was already a legend wherever journalists met to praise the bravest and the best, for her coverage of Chechnya. It was, and is, one of the most dangerous assignments anywhere and her readiness to expose excesses on both sides made her the most famous Russian reporter of the era, a reproach to the authorities who tried to muzzle her.'

Channel News Asia
October 7, 2006

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that responsible journalism will help improve the lives of people.

Mr Lee was speaking at the 7th Asian-European Editors' Forum.

Citing Japan, Mr Lee said that it has been very successful at improving people's lives without an aggressive media.

He said: "Their approach is different from the Western one but it suits Japan's culture and circumstances and has contributed to Japan's success. As with the political system, in the media too, each country will have to evolve its own model of the media that works for it."

Mr Lee said that even in this Internet age, there will still be a role for serious journalism.

That's because people still want information sources which are reliable and insightful.

Using Singapore as an example, Mr Lee said that the government manages the Internet with a light touch but still applies the same defamation and sedition laws to it.

And the government is mindful of the increasing impact of the new and changing technology.

Mr Lee said: "Our position will evolve as we feel our way forward, but we do not believe that we should just drift with the tide. We still need anchor points that reflect our values, our vulnerabilities and our ambitions.

"The media in Singapore must adapt to these changes, do their best to stay relevant and continue to contribute constructively to nation building."

As economies develop, Mr Lee emphasized the need for good governance.

Mr Lee added that as new generations come of age, they will want to have more say in their countries' affairs.

"Leaders must be able to respond creatively to this new situation and political systems must evolve to remain effective. Each country, including Singapore, will have to make changes in its own way and strike its own point of balance, taking into account its unique circumstances," he said.

Mr Lee said Asian countries face major challenges despite the positive economic outlook.

But groupings like ASEAN and the Asia-Europe Summit Meetings can help establish greater relations and encourage dialogues.

Mr Lee said: "ASEAN aims to be the centre of these networks of cooperation both within Asia, between Asia and Europe, as well as the Pacific with the US. But to play this role, ASEAN must also be a strong and cohesive organization, able to partner China and India effectively."

Mr Lee was addressing some 40 international editors from countries like China and France.

When asked during a question and answer session about Temasek Holdings' deal with ShinCorp, Mr Lee said it was a commercial decision which also reflected Singapore's confidence in Thailand's economy.

He added that Temasek complied with the rules and requirements of Thailand when inking the deal.

On Mr Lee wanting to build a more open society, a German editor asked why that was not reflected in Singapore's treatment towards civil society organizations during the International Monetary Fund-World Bank Meetings here recently.

Mr Lee said Singapore allows views to be articulated, at the same time, ensuring a stable and honest political system.

He explained why certain civil society representatives were barred from entering Singapore, citing one who had run-ins with the law in other countries.

He said: "There was one chap who had broken into the World Bank offices in Washington and stolen confidential documents and had gone to Seattle and broken some other laws. And he had every intention of coming here to do no good.

"Why should I allow him in? So we said, these, we have to vet one by one. It became an issue so we said, 'all right, if you vouch for them, I'll let most of them in but these last 5, I want to make absolutely sure they're not going to cause trouble here'. I think that's quite reasonable.

"I don't mind anybody coming to have a dialogue, debate, conversation. But I don't see why I should have a riot as happened in Prague in 2000 or in Hong Kong in 2005, last year, at the WTO Meeting. That's not democracy."

Times Online
May 13, 2005
By Vanora Bennett

There's something very un-English about murderers who dispatch their victims too flamboyantly. Louis Untermeyer expressed British puzzlement when faced with showy foreign killers perfectly in the lines:

Although the Borgias
Were rather gorgeous
They liked the absurder
Kind of murder.

That's why people in this country find stories about the KGB so extraordinary. The sheer swaggering theatricality of the kind of killings the Soviet secret police were said to favor, beggars the average English person's belief. Tell an Englishman that an assassin might choose to kill someone innocently waiting for a London bus by jabbing him with an umbrella tip containing a pellet of the rare and virtually untraceable poison ricin, and the Englishman's first reaction will be to laugh in disbelief. Why bother with such elaborate cloak-and-dagger tactics? If you want to bump someone off, why not just push him under the bus?

Yet, however much it sticks in English gullets, that is exactly the way the KGB did behave. Ricin was used in the James Bond-style murder in London in 1978 of the Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov. He was jabbed with a poisoned umbrella tip while waiting for a bus on London Bridge, and died four days later. The KGB was blamed.

Anyone who thinks the secret police learned to behave better after the Soviet Union disintegrated - and the Soviet KGB was reformed and renamed the Russian FSB - will definitely want to gasp and stretch their eyes at almost everything a more recent arrival in London has been saying since he got here.

Alexander Litvinenko came to the British capital five years ago. He's a fair-haired man of about 40 with quiet ways and watchful eyes. He has a wife and a son coming up to his teens. They've all lived unobtrusively in a leafy bit of suburban London since leaving Moscow.

But I am not at liberty to reveal precisely which leafy bit of London Mr Litvinenko lives in. He believes that might endanger his life. His contact details change often; his mobile number went dead last summer after someone pushed a pram containing Molotov cocktails at his front door. Until recently, Mr Litvinenko was a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian secret police. He claims to know some of the darkest secrets of his country's recent past, from the era when the FSB was run by one Vladimir Putin, who later become the Russian president. And the spy in hiding fears he will be silenced.

Mr Litvinenko first made headlines in Russia in 1998, when he blew the whistle on an order he says he received from his FSB superiors to assassinate the unpopular but powerful tycoon Boris Berezovsky. After a black comedy of institutional reaction - he was fired, arrested on unrelated charges of mistreating a detainee, acquitted, re-arrested on similar charges, re-acquitted, re-arrested a third time, and only cleared his name in court thanks to a photographic memory which allowed him to prove exactly where he was at any given time - he was whisked off to Britain where he won political asylum.

While still at the FSB, Mr Litvinenko says his job was corruption-busting. But, he says, he kept finding it inside his own office - generals hand in glove with drug-runners; colonels running racketeers. All his investigations were fruitless because they ultimately led to federal ministries. His attempt to spill the beans to Putin himself - and get the boss to crack down on an organization running riot - was not a success. He was fired within weeks.

Luckily for him, Mr Berezovsky quickly fell out with President Putin and also fled to London, where he too now has political asylum. Mr Berezovsky spends his time here denouncing the Russian president for bringing the histrionic methods of murder traditionally favored by the KGB into the modern Kremlin. The billionaire finances a coterie of dissidents whose stories lend weight to his version of events, including Mr Litvinenko and the Chechen separatist Akhmed Zakayev.

So Alexander Litvinenko pops up at press conferences, at parties for anti-Putin journalists, and last week, at the Oxford Union with Mr Zakayev. He looks restrained, speaks quietly and wears neat tweed jackets. But his every revelation is designed to show that the FSB, Putin's almer mater, is behind just as many cloak-and-dagger horrors as the KGB ever was.

His biggest revelation centred on the conspiracy theory that the FSB was involved in a string of bombing attacks that levelled apartment buildings across Russia in the autumn of 1999. The theory has it that these bombings, which Russian authorities blamed on Chechen separatists, were used to galvanize public support for the invasion of Chechnya and win Mr Putin the presidency.

President Putin has dismissed the allegation that the bombings were organized by the FSB, under his own command, as "delirious nonsense". But the FSB was annoyed enough about Mr Litvinenko's book, "The FSB Blows Up Russia", to seize a shipment of 4,400 of them in Moscow at the end of 2003 in what it called an effort to protect state secrets.

It was hair-raising stuff, at least in principle. But in practice, outside the overheated rooms where the kind of people gather who have lived in Russia and come to take KGB horror stories seriously (including, I have to admit, myself), it never really gained a foothold in the British popular imagination. It was just too exotic for anyone from the comparatively gentle streets of London. Perhaps partly because the FSB has omitted to take a poisoned umbrella to Mr Litvinenko, his revelations have turned out to be a bit of a damp squib.

I thought he'd gone quiet for a while but last week I found him at it again - this time announcing that the FSB had been behind a bizarre bloodletting in ex-Soviet Armenia in 1999, when gunmen burst into parliament and shot eight of the most prominent politicians in the land.

I'm no longer in phone contact with Alexander Litvinenko. But his emails go on coming thick and fast - musings on the causes of the Chechen conflict or patriotism, snippets from Chechen press, or bitter comparisons between Putin's Russia and Nazis, all topped with quotes from Russian literature in neat italics.

Mr Litvinenko must be frustrated to discover that he's brought his extraordinary revelations to a land where people can't bring themselves to believe in the absurder kind of murder (except if it is committed between the covers of an Agatha Christie novel).

Like many immigrants, there's clearly a part of him that can't let go of his past at home, even a past and a home as horrifying as he says Russia is if you're in the FSB, or come to its attention. But he's an intelligent man. Give him another five years to assimilate, and who knows?

He may yet come to be pleased to have become part of a society that operates through an endless round of TV dinners, PTA meetings and uneventful outings to Tescos, and whose definition of freedom is the freedom to feel safe while snoozing through the news.

Kansas City Star
December 10, 2006
By Charles Krauthammer

The poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, renegade Russian spy and fierce critic of Vladimir Putin’s government, is everywhere being called a mystery.

There is dark speculation about unnamed "rogue elements", either in the Russian secret services or amongst ultranationalists, acting independently of the government.

Well, you can believe in indeterminacy. Or you can believe the testimony delivered on the only reliable lie detector ever invented - the deathbed - by the victim himself. Litvinenko directly accused Putin of killing him.

Litvinenko knew more about his circumstances than anyone else. And on their deathbeds, people don’t lie.

In science, there is a principle called Occam’s razor. When presented with competing theories for explaining a natural phenomenon, one adopts the least elaborate. You don’t need a convoluted device to explain Litvinenko’s demise.

Do you think Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist who was investigating the war in Chechnya, was shot dead in her elevator by rogue elements?

Opponents of Putin have been falling like flies. True, Litvinenko’s murder will never be traced directly to Putin; no matter how dogged the British police investigation. State-sponsored assassinations are almost never traceable to the source.

Moreover, Russia has a long and distinguished history of state-sponsored assassination, of which the ice-pick murder of Trotsky was but the most notorious. Does anyone believe that Pope John Paul II, then shaking the foundations of the Soviet empire, was shot by a crazed Turk acting on behalf of only Bulgaria?

If we were not mourning a brave man who has just died a horrible death, one would almost have to admire the Russians, not just for the audacity, but for technique in Litvinenko’s polonium-210 murder. Assassination by poisoning evokes the great classical era of raison d’etat rub-outs by the Borgias and the Medicis. But the futurist twist of the first reported radiological assassination in history, to quote Peter D. Zimmerman in The Wall Street Journal, adds an element of the baroque, of which a world-class thug outfit such as the KGB (now given new initials) should be proud.

Some say that the Litvinenko murder was so obvious, so bold, and so messy that it could not have possibly been the KGB.

But that’s the beauty of it. Do it obvious, do it brazenly, and count on those too-clever-by-half Westerners to find that exonerating.

The other reason for making it obvious and brazen is to send a message. This is a warning to all the future Litvinenkos of what awaits them if they continue to go after the Russian government.

Some people say that the KGB would not have gone to such great lengths to get so small a fry as Litvinenko. Well, he might have been a small fry but his investigations were not. He was looking into the Kremlin roots of Politkovskaya’s shooting. And Litvinenko claimed that the Russian government itself blew up apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, in order to blame it on the Chechens and provoke the second Chechen war.

But even Litvinenko’s personal smallness serves the KGB’s purposes precisely. If they go to such lengths and such messiness and such risks to kill someone as small as Litvinenko, then no critic of the Putin dictatorship is safe.

Los Angeles Times
December 10, 2006

The radioactive poisoning death of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko is mushrooming into a tale of intrigue that is both mesmerizing and confusing in equal measure. But the cloak-and-dagger theatrics threaten to obscure an urgent danger at the story's heart - journalists in President Vladimir V. Putin's Russia are increasingly being attacked and killed.

The latest Litvinenko news is the stuff of a John Le Carre novel: Two Russian businessmen, one of them a former KGB colonel, and an Italian investigator - all of whom who met with Litvinenko just before he fell ill - have also suffered poisoning from polonium-210.

Traces of the material were also found in employees of the London bar where Litvinenko and the Russians met, and on aircraft that flew between Moscow and London. Meanwhile, former Russian Prime Minister Yegor T. Gaidar fell severely ill in Dublin and also claims to have been poisoned, though not with polonium and, he insists, not by the Kremlin.

We may never find out whodunit or who ordered it done, but we know what Litvinenko was investigating at the time of his death: the killing of decorated Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who had been exposing alleged Russian misdeeds in Chechnya.

Were the killings of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko isolated incidents, the Kremlin's protests that it suffers most from the bad international publicity would be more worthy of sympathy. But Politkovskaya was at least the 21st Russian journalist to be killed since Putin was elected in 2000, according to Reporters Without Borders. Two others have disappeared and are presumed dead, and there have been 320 assaults.

This would be alarming in any country, but it comes during a period in which the Russian government has nationalized private TV stations that had been critical of the regime, backed the takeover of independent media by political allies, arrested media executives or forced them into exile, and repeatedly brought criminal charges against journalists. The human rights group Freedom House ranks Russia as simply "not free" when it comes to the media.

The result has been de facto impunity for those who would enforce public silence - be they corrupt government officials, sleazy businessmen, gangsters or others who fear exposure or debate. That some news outlets have accepted payment to print or withhold sensitive information in the anarchic post-Soviet marketplace certainly complicates the picture.

But the pattern of censorship, intimidation and deadly violence against the Kremlin's fiercest critics makes it increasingly difficult to give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

Politkovskaya, one of the bravest reporters of her generation, was gunned down on October 7 in what many suspect was a contract killing. She is the third journalist from her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta - one of the last Russian publications that dares do investigative reporting - to die.

Last month, two other Novaya Gazeta reporters received death threats; one was investigating Politkovskaya's slaying. While the newspaper's staff risks their lives to shed light on the inner workings of Putin's Russia, the West has a moral obligation to insist that the Russian government protect them.

MosNews
December 10, 2006

Russia Today TV, Moscow’s English-language satellite television channel, reported that Russian government officials are considering filing libel suits against international journalists over their reporting on the poisoning death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Shortly before he died in London from radiation poisoning in late November, Litvinenko, who was a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, accused him of ordering his assassination. Putin and other Russian officials strongly denied any prior knowledge of a plot to kill Litvinenko.

According to a report posted late Friday on the Russia Today TV web-site, the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media is gathering publications worldwide to be studied for libelous and offensive comments against Russia in their coverage of the Litvinenko’s case.

Russia Today TV reported that the Russian government intends to file law suits for libel against international media if there is evidence of journalistic misconduct.

In a Voice of America interview shortly before he was poisoned by a radioactive substance polonium-210, former Russian spy Litvinenko had accused President Putin of ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya to silence her and intimidate other independent journalists. She had been killed by an unknown assailant in Moscow in early October.

The Russian government’s warnings aimed at international journalists follow President Putin’s largely successful efforts to bring major media outlets in Russia under government control and to limit media criticism of his policies.

Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based non-governmental organization, has called Mr. Putin one of the world’s top "Predators of Press Freedom".

President Putin, on his part, insists he is a strong supporter of democracy and press freedom. In a speech to Russian television broadcasters in late November 2006, Putin said that the development of Russian state and society would be unthinkable without independent media, without the possibility of listening to different points of view, and without television.

Polonium-210 (Po210) was originally called Radium F when the Curies discovered it.

It is highly radioactive with alpha decay, so much so that the metal container used to hold it becomes hot to the touch. It has been used as a heat source in satellites. You had better hope the container has a good tight seal because Po210 is a very fine dust, and as the alpha decay gives the dust particles a static electric charge, it has the tendency to creep out of its container, even through a screw thread. Much like Tinker Bell sprinkling magic pixie dust, whosoever handles it is likely to spread it all over themselves, all over wherever they go, and whomever they come in contact with. Po210 is a substance that can easily become an aerosol. God forbid that they should break-wind. It will be like Godzilla belch-blasting Tokyo.

Alpha radiation is not normally dangerous as even paper is thick enough to block it. But if the dust particles enter the system, Po210 is so radioactive that it will immediately start to kill any cells it comes into contact with. It has a half life of 138 days, long enough for even a fraction of a gram to do its work. Po210 decays into Pb206, which is stable and would be undetectable, given that any resident of an industrial society has accumulated lead from petrol, paint and other sources.

The presence of Thallium isotopes suggests that this batch was made in a reactor, probably by bombarding Bismuth with neutrons. It might be possible for someone with access to a research reactor, say a post-doc student, to make a small amount, but usually management of a reactor is so tight the management would need to be aware of it. More than a gram or so of Po210 will glow in the dark with blue Cherenkov radiation, and that tends to draw attention to it.

An interesting possibility is that the dose could have been inhaled as Radon-222 (Rn222) gas. With a half life of 3.8 days, this decays into a series of very short lived daughter products, each of which is quite radioactive. After less than seven days, the Rn222 gas would only exist in the body as Po210, but there would be no Thallium, just Bismuth and Lead isotopes.

former military officers usually do not make good peace time leaders and vice versa

2010-05-08T22:24:00.002+08:00

It is hard to distinguish when it is times of peace and when it is times of war, for Hawks, madmen and Jihadians can blur the lines however fine. American presidents and prime ministers everywhere chooses who they want as their cabinet colleagues. That is how a government is formed. A hawk shapes a hawkish government. A dove shapes a dovish government. Passive peace time or proactive war time follows.
Bill Clinton had his mind preoccupied with personal under the table matters and had little inclination for under the table matters deemed more important to the state by the men in the Pentagon. When push came to shove, as usually he was wont to deal with Saddam Whose Sane, he ordered to let fly a few handy cruise missiles and stocked up on more.
George Bush is more of a hawk and stuffed his cabinet with similar minded people. The pace of expansion of influence into Eastern Europe increased as well as the land link to the oil rich Middle East via Afghanistan and Iraq established. So discomfited does Russia now feel that it and China staged the just concluded unprecedented joint military exercise. To ease the minds of its American Middle Eastern allies was Ariel Sharon made to dismantle Israeli settlements in the occupied territories? Who knows? Will Bush know to stop only when the Tartars (Chechens) start to fight Americans rather than Russians? It may already have begun. The Uzbeks just legislated to kick the American military out of their country.
History amply suggests that former military officers usually do not make good peace time leaders and vice versa. Take Winston Church Chill for instance. His passive predecessor leading into WW2 gave and gave to Hitler’s thirst for territorial expansion. A wise electorate then chose Church Chill to lead, but dumped him after the war for peace. From Nape of Lion to Pint of Shit to Cold Is Sushi, from Chile, Argentina, Mexico, France to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, it has been amply demonstrated that the electorate will not hesitate to dump their former military officer leaders for more peace minded ones once the fighting is done.
There are exceptions to the above model. When the electorate becomes collectively mesmerized with leaders like Hitler or Napoleon? Or when there is a coup like in Burma. Or what usually happens to elections in the Philippines. Or when no leader comes forward that stays good for long enough like in Pakistan. Or when the country is Promised Land to more than one tribe like in Judea. Or when there is not much of a choice like in Singapore?
Is this the reason LHL chose to distance himself from his military past? I have had experience with how the military does a save water campaign. Unfortunately, it was my turn to clean the loo. It was a choice of taking the first bus to Changi or stay in. I took the first bus, got there to clear the leaves and clean the loo. The taps were turned off after that. There is only water to clear the first bombing runs after lunch. The second bombing runs stayed till it dried to welcome me the next morning. After a few days, I realized the save water campaign was a guaranteed success. Another example would be the banning of chewing gum to protect the MRT. Yet another example is the compulsory acquisition of Hock Kee House. Contrast these campaigns to the yellow ribbon project and the appreciation and employment of older workers. Running TV ads to raise charity funds might work. Running TV ads for political brownie points might yet work although, going by what is written on the internet, cynicism is setting in. But will such lip-service propaganda spins do anything at all to change mindsets? Not a chance when the doors are wide open to 'foreign talent’ and the goal being to increase the population to raise consumption GDP and tax. The 'goose-oil' used to fry the 'golden egg' is experience. How can the older worker stand a chance if only freshies get the opportunity to gain experience?
The latest spin is workfare. Even Ernie on Sesame Street knows that we cannot all be firemen. Just take for instance temporary jobs for distributing NDP tickets and yellow pages. Even these positions require interviews where the older worker is filtered out. The spin admits that the only position possibly available to older workers is coffee shop cleaner. (If there are enough new coffee shops to go around for the currently unemployed.) Realizing this, I went to Kwan Im Thong Hood Cho temple for advice. The Buddha vehemently advised otherwise. Apparently, even for the Buddha, cynicism is setting in.(My other blog is at http://mytoiletpapers.blogspot.com/).

want wind, get wind; want rain, get rain.

2010-04-08T22:24:00.000+08:00

This is direct translation from a mandarin phrase describing the situation where power has corrupted and absolute power has corrupted absolutely, and where checks and balances has been effectively neutered. Pardon me if I got it wrong. I am not the authority on mandarin phrases as I got F9 for my second language. Song Dynasty Grand Tutor Pang may have uttered the phrase.
I am not usually keen on debates since they are academic NATO, but I followed one particular episode of the Sentosa international varsity debate as translation was provided and the topic was on whether paying high salaries would prevent corruption. The team arguing against the motion was advocating a lost cause as a member of the 3 judge panel was part of the local political establishment. The team as such probably did not do furious internet research, and either failed to think of it or found it politically incorrect to argue that moolah is the proverbial double-edged sword and can buy as much as it can prevent corruption. This is extracted from a 'discussion thread' I read at littlespeck.com which I found absolutely profound that I saved the paragraph at the time I came across it:
'Paying millions and high salaries has never been about preventing corruption notwithstanding the reason given that it is. As Abdullah Ah Mad Bad Awi said recently and as others have said in the past, if you are corrupt you are corrupt. The predisposition to dishonesty and corruption lies in one's character and personal upbringing. It cannot be prevented by paying one a "high salary". In any case, if you have to pay someone a million and more because you see him as potentially corrupt, then it cannot be that the person is a man of "integrity" in the first place.
Paying millions and high salaries is about securing political loyalty, buying sycophancy and sealing the mouths of the minions. Minions whose interests are quickly tied and fastened to ones own interest and as such, will ensure that they do nothing to hurt you because hurting you would mean hurting themselves. It will ensure that the minions represent their master and not the interest of their electorate. It will ensure that anything qualifies as "defamation" if the master so decides that it is. It will ensure that you torture someone if the master so decides that he is a Marxist or asserts that he is working with "foreigners". Who wants to rock the boat or challenge the system and political order when he is well fed, well looked after and paid "high salaries" and whose interest and "high salaries" will collapse if that of his master collapses? After all, has anyone ever seen a well-fed dog bite the hands of his master?'
Maybe a debate on such a subject cannot and should not be presided over by a 3 judge panel. That is why a US Supreme Court judicial review panel consists of 5 judges, or is it 7. Just as accounting regulatory bodies recognizes that independence is a perennial issue with corporate audits and governance, the constitution of a judicial panel would not matter if the judges are beholden to their paymaster. That is when Grand Tutor Pang wants wind, he gets wind, and when he wants rain, he gets rain. All because his daughter has 2 holes between her legs, which is as it should be. Unlike Zhuge Liang who had to have an altar erected and chant hard to conjure his wind and rain, Grand Tutor Pang just offers holes to the emperor. The worth of holes cannot be under-estimated. Moolah is not the only thing that can corrupt. But moolah can pay for everything else that can corrupt.
Written in the spirit of Cato the Younger (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon: Cato's Letters):
We know, by infinite examples and experience, that men possessed of power, rather than part with it, will do anything, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it; and scarce ever any man upon Earth went out of it as long as he could carry every thing his own Way in it ..... This seems certain, that the good of the world, or of their people, was not one of their motives either for continuing in power, or for quitting it.
It is the nature of power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary power, granted at particular times, and upon particular occasions, into an ordinary power, to be used at all times, and when there is no occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any advantage ....Alas! Power encroaches daily upon liberty, with a success too evident; and the balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at mankind root and branch, makes the world a slaughterhouse; and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is most likely, has left nothing else to destroy.

Simone Tay: tongue in cheek with George Soros

2010-03-08T14:45:00.000+08:00

Simone Tay:

I have to let you know before hand that at times I may have to ask you leading questions. The establishment may also edit our conversation before general broadcast.

George Soros:

I am used to the scenario. If it were not for the fact that I have chosen on being a political philanthropist and a critic, I would very much be persuaded to decline on having a one-on-one with the likes of you.

Simone Tay:

How do you argue with success ...

George Soros:

It depends on what you define by success and how you go about achieving it. Hitler could also claim success with his Third Reich. He subdued most of Europe and North Africa.

Simone Tay:

Aren't you not afraid of rubbing LKY the wrong way ...

George Soros:

You already know the answer. If I am not afraid to rub Bush and Putin the wrong way, what do I worry about in a small fry like LKY. It helps of course that I have achieved a considerable amount of financial success, without which I would have been most vulnerable.

Simone Tay:

What do you think about our workfare incentive?

George Soros:

It is a very nice package. However, the introduction of it before a general election sours it somewhat.

Simone Tay:

What do you mean?

George Soros:

It reminds me of Nazi Germany before the war and Holocaust. Policies that were slowly introduced which were designed to ostracize the Jewish community ...

Simone Tay:

We have to get our unemployed back to work.

George Soros:

That on the face of it yes. But you have other policies that very much work against that intended prospect.

Simone Tay:

Such as?

George Soros:

You have an ageing population that employers are not persuaded as worth considering except for menial task.

Simone Tay:

Isn't that the case everywhere.

George Soros:

Then there is no minimum wage that at least could somewhat protect them from such a formidable vulnerability. And then there is this thing called CPF ...

Simone Tay:

We've already adjusted it so that the aged get less contribution from employers ...

George Soros:

The reality of the matter somewhat belies your eagerness to pull a veil over the truth. Menial tasks usually do not enjoy CPF contributions because they are jobs which Bangladeshis are willing to take on.

Simone Tay:

Don't you think that the CPF is a better concept than the Social Security that you have in America?

George Soros:

Yes, but we do not have such an open door policy on foreign talent. CPF contributions are such a negative impact on the nurturing of local talent.

Simone Tay:

But you yourself was once a foreign import into America ...

George Soros:

I'm a realist. I admit I was fortunate to be an immigrant at a time when the American economy was booming. Things are different now.

Simone Tay:

How so.

George Soros:

Yours is a developed economy now if you measure it by the proportion of the foreign component to your GDP. And you are planning to increase your population by roughly two million. I don't suppose that you intend them to be made up of foreign students?

Simone Tay:

But ...

George Soros:

These people need jobs if they are to be attracted here. Unless you are merely after whores. They are going to deprive the locals of job prospects no matter how you intend to lie about it. Coupled with the effect of globalization, your workfare policy looks like a prelude to a Holocaust ...

Simone Tay:

The alternative ...

George Soros:

Why don't you simply gas them like Hitler did ... the people you feel are dead weight and a drag on the economy ...

Simone Tay:

We cannot be seen to be doing something like that.

George Soros:

So you created something called workfare.

Simone Tay:

Singaporeans are an unthinking and kiasu lot ...

George Soros:

Not all of them are living vegetables. You are not exactly handing out prospecting claims. Don't expect a gold-rush.

Simone Tay:

So what would you suggest for an election slogan?

George Soros:

You're baiting me ...

Simone Tay:

Oh, come on ...

George Soros:

How about 'Grow the economy, and we'll hand out the peanuts come an election?'

the case for Osama bin Laden not targeting Singapore

2010-02-08T22:24:00.000+08:00

Singapore just celebrated 40 years as a nation. Its re-appointed President (unless you consider a 3-vote electoral process as a walkover), S R Nathan, is 80 years old. Nathan is an ex-spy. Without delving into his resume, much of which would be state secret anyway, and just going by the Presidential Electoral Committee granting him the only Certificate of Eligibility to run for President, we can assume Nathan was once an ex-spy chief, probably more likely than not, the one that set up the local spy agency.
What has Nathan got to do with Osama bin Laden not targeting Singapore, you might ask? Well, the current spy chief of the local spy agency and his lieutenants, more likely than not, were probably former Nathan henchmen. If you have read the book ‘To Catch a Tartar’ by Francis Seow, which is as much a lesson in the English language as it is an insight into the modus operandi of the local spy agency, you may realize Nathan and his henchmen may have been valued more for their ‘bouncer’ and ‘rough-neck’ qualities than their diplomatic skill sets and cranial abilities. Brains and brawn do not usually a good mixture or compound make.
Again, you might ask: What has Nathan got to do with Osama bin Laden not targeting Singapore? It has to do with the marginalization of ‘small-size’ Singapore by its lesser developed but resource rich neighbors, Singapore Telecom’s monopoly over the island’s land communication lines, and the decision not to allow the use of power-line communication technology as an alternative cheap means of telecommunicating in Singapore (you may want to look at the rest of this blog for background knowledge).
Yet again, you might ask in frustration: What has Nathan got to do with Osama bin Laden not fucking targeting Singapore? Well, if you have been following the exploits of Osama bin Laden, and his organization, Al-Qaeda, you may have realized Osama relish in challenging intelligence agencies of the West in ‘cat and mouse’ and mind games. He is the proverbial slippery fish that has yet to show up in the Western intelligence agencies’ draught nets despite a tempting price on his head. I do not feel he will find any spy games involving the former henchmen of Nathan much of a challenge. Osama, more likely than not, despise walkovers.
Is the Singapore spy agency such a no-brainer in the eyes of Osama bin Laden? In my view, YES. In the past 10 years, I have increasingly begun to suspect that I am being monitored. For somebody who graduated from the Institute of Mental Health not once, but twice, you may say, well, it is something to be expected, this guy is nuts. Be brave, read on, it is not far to the end of the article, and I will even let you view most of my educational certificates (at http://mytoiletpapers.blogspot.com/).
I will not be dwelling on past experiences. I will simply be talking about this last telephone line I applied for that is currently unable to call out for non-payment, and that will soon be terminated by Singapore Telecom. This line has been in existence for slightly more than a year and a half. When I applied for it at Exeter Road, the customer service girl typed my name wrong. I noticed it but did not correct her mistake. It is wise not to correct involuntary mistakes. It takes 3 days for the service to be provided. I gave no one my tentatively reserved number. About 4 hours into the day when the service was provided, someone called to identify me using his StarHub mobile. He asked for me by my right name. He was just calling to identify me with the line. This is spy game I am getting used to dealing with. The difference is this time around there existed a mistake within a mistake. Not simply a case of my imagination running wild. Just by opening his big mouth, the intelligence operative gave his anonymity away. After mulling over the call for another few hours, I called Singapore Telecom to fish for leads. All I got was that it was hardly likely their contractor would use a StarHub number to check if my line was functioning. Of course I got crank calls later as is usually the case when I get a line. But I would not pick up incoming calls with no caller ID’s and the crank gave up after a while.
I later used the line to dial into StarHub 2 cents a minute to surf the www. By and by, I noticed that every time I dialed in, it takes 4 to 8 minutes during which the computer is busy with something before I can even get the webpage I wanted loaded. Every time I dialed in, DrWatson would tell me svchost.exe had experienced an error and needs to be restarted. Ctrl-V would not work after svchost.exe had an error. So I needed to do a reboot. Which means I cannot dial in if I want to copy and paste.
After finding unexplainable executables being downloaded and launching whenever I dialed into StarHub 2 cents a minute, and my Internet Explorer locked to dial the StarHub 2 cents a minute, I switched to using zapsurf 2.something cents a minute. Same thing happened with this other service. When I found 2 no extension files that had simple instructions to call the zapsurf server, I filed a police report (A/20040617/0122D) but the goons said no action would be taken.
To cut a long story short, I spent a lot of off-line time and on-line money looking for a solution around my ISP imposed limitations. I even called my computer manufacturer customer service to fish for ideas. Along the way I made some bad assumptions. Then I met an ex-colleague I had not seen or talked to for over 14 years that tried to confirm my wrong assumptions. I never discussed about the bad assumptions to anyone except the computer manufacturer customer service, and then only over the line. How did the ex-SPH ex-colleague know what I was talking about over the phone? How did he become used as an intelligence operative asking for my computer on the pretext of helping out an ex-colleague? How was he identified as an ex-colleague that I would perhaps trust? Who came up with this fucking stupid spy game? How did the local spy agency come to use poorly trained intelligence operatives that give themselves away at every opportunity? Did they come to the conclusion that with control over the technology infrastructure, they do not need to invest in more professionally trained spies? How can Osama possibly find Nathan ex-henchmen challenging opponents?
It took me a year before I found the solution around my ISP imposed limitations, and with costs piling up from non-payment and no crank calls, I gave up my caller ID service. It takes 3 days for the service to de-activate. No talking is needed. All one does is punch phone buttons. No point in suspecting parabolic antennae aimed at me. No need to suspect planted bugs. No sense to imagine phone-taps. On the day it was de-activated, the crank knew and was happy to let me know that he knew.
When the AcidFlask affair blew-up, I took tentative steps towards blogging. Got a call by a very furtive ‘headhunter’ enquiring about my status as an Insurance Agent and whether I got my CPA. He got nothing that he did not already know. I do not need their goodwill for any sort of practice permit. I was jobless. This ‘headhunter’ asked for me by the name in the phone book. I do not send resumes with the wrong name when I apply for jobs by email. It takes a stupid spy to give the game away every time he opens his mouth. Did Nathan leave behind such a stupid legacy? An inept local spy agency? How can Osama possibly want to target Singapore?
On the stroke of midnight separating 25th and 26th of July 2005, I could no longer make outgoing calls. Incoming was still possible. The crank called many times over the next few days to let me know that he knew. I tried to make a police report. The goons told me that crank calls are a civil matter. I have never done anything, political or subversive, that to my knowledge, would persuade the authorities to have me monitored. Nor to be given full marks by IMH for not having friends, be he man, woman or animal. Nor for not desiring to poke Huang Na who had yet to develop breasts. How can Took Leng How be sane and me insane? I cannot imagine how Nathan got his COE. Why would Osama possibly want to target Singapore? Nat’han worthy of a challenge. So rest easy.I have not changed my NRIC address since mid 1996. SSG Alan Tam of Division A in year 2000 threatened to charge me. I gave him the go-ahead if it could advance his career. He then backtracked that without a complainant, he could not charge. Can you believe this? I have to provide the complainant as well. Any one care to complain?

yellow ribbon fantasy - a PAP mind and money game

2010-01-08T10:00:00.000+08:00

No, I wasn't beaten up in police lock-up. In fact I was eating french-fries whilst under interrogation. Senior investigating officer Ko Poh Koon bought me two hamburger set meals to coax me into pleading guilty.

But I was attacked in the dungeon under the Subordinate Court by one of Wong Kan Seng's goons. So what if I was wearing a pair of panties. Underwear is underwear. It's just a piece of cloth. That's no reason for an officer to grope.

Worse was yet to come from the goon. Later, on the pretext of strip-searching, he brought an over-sized truncheon into the cell I was in. Without provocation, he pushed me against the wall and shoved the truncheon at my ass-hole before retreating.

I lodged an immediate protest. It attracted a woman sergeant who then referred it to the officer in charge of the dungeon. When I was led up to the Court above, every goon in sight started removing his name tag. So never be under the illusion that, whilst the PAP regime is in power, it is innocent until proven guilty. Rather the opposite is true. So what if I broke a couple of car windscreens. They belonged to my cousins. Not some big fuck in the government.

Of course when I was finally freed by Wong Kan Seng's goons some 6 months later, I immediately lodged a complaint which went all the way to an identification line-up where I fingered the culprit. But the magistrate told me it was up to me to prosecute him, and that the attorney general's office may even back-up the goon in defense.

I have noticed ever since, that whenever I got involved with the goons, I received the kind of special glance reserved for well-known adversaries of the Lee Kuan Yew's regime, inclusive of whilst going through the border checkpoint. And I'm not involved in politics.

ST Forum 28 August 2006
By Lee Li Yng (Ms)

After I read about the delivery man who will be denied entry to the Conrad Centennial Hotel when the International Monetary Fund meeting starts next month ("Singapore delivery man told he can't enter IMF meeting area"; The New Paper, Aug 16), I have a similar experience to share.

My brother, who is in his late teens, works for a transport company on weekends. One Sunday, he was on assignment at the Istana with a couple of colleagues. Upon arrival, three of them were denied entry.

One 17-year-old had received a warning as a result of an ice-cream theft at the tender age of 12.

An 18-year-old spent time in a boys' home for getting into fights during his younger days. And my brother has a date with the courts over a fight.

This brings to mind the Yellow Ribbon campaign, an initiative by the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-Offenders group.

To quote from http://www.yellowribbon.org.sg: "Care Network needs to join hands with the community and other government organizations to create a stable social platform on which reformed offenders and their families can start life afresh.

"The 'key' needed to release them from this second social prison lies with family, friends, employers and the community. Let's give them the key."

The greater irony is that my dear brother, who surely is innocent of his crime until proven guilty, has not even been sentenced yet.

I can imagine what older ex-convicts face in society, given this sorry state of affairs.

Of course, there are sprinklings of success stories. But the painful truth is that plenty still struggle to find gainful employment, and the more desperate ones turn back to crime. Is it any wonder at all?

It pains me to see one of my kin treated like this.

I write in the hope of raising the community's awareness of such irony - not to demand justice just for my brother but for all who may have committed some offence in a moment of folly and have genuinely repented.

How else can we "help unlock the second prison" for ex-convicts?

tax disguised as conservancy charge

2009-12-08T10:03:00.000+08:00

ST Forum 28 August 2006
By Sarimah Itnin (Mdm)

I have lived in Sengkang since 2000. I have to make calls to Ang Mo Kio Town Council on corridor lighting issues, lift issues, garbage and bulky items left unattended for days and so on.

My question is: Whose responsibility is this? Residents? Then why do we pay conservancy charges?

Recently, my corridor lights were out for a week. When I called the town council, I had to wait 10 minutes listening to a voice recorder before my call was answered.

Then I had to explain to a woman officer, who then transferred me to the maintenance side.

I had to repeat what I said again, but the officer was unable to answer when I asked her who is responsible for this.

Then I was transferred to another officer - Madam Wee, who said there is a "checker". Obviously, this "checker" is not checking.

I then asked to speak to someone in authority, but Madam Wee said her name is Gladys but she was out of office.

I left my contact details but till today, there has been no call. It was only in the last few days that the lights were fixed.

My questions: Does a simple question need to be repeated to three officers?

And what service do we residents receive in return for the monthly conservancy charges?

Summons to an accused person

Dated this 4th day of July, 2006 (funny it wasn't stuck on the door until more than 2 weeks later)

Case ID: SC-019929-06
Charge No: TC-007025-2006

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) Section 158-160

Charge:

You, KOH CHONG KIANG (NRIC No S1471858C), the lessee of Apartment Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245 Singapore 050536, are charged that you have failed to pay the outstanding conservancy and service charges for the months of December 2003 to September 2005 (actually, Dec 2003 to date) of $529.00 (actually, the number seemed to have gone up and down) due and owing to the Town Council of Jalan Besar within 14 days from the date of service on you of a written demand dated 10 March 2006 and that you have thereby committed an offence under Section 39(7) of the Town Councils Act (Cap 329A) and punishable under the said Section thereof.

You are hereby required to appear on the 3rd day of August, 2006 at 6.00pm in person before the Subordinate Court No. CT 26N at Singapore and you are hereby warned that if you shall, without just excuse, neglect or refuse to appear on the said date, a Warrant may be issued to compel your attendance.

1) There's not enough balance in my CPF to service the mortgage.
2) The utilities bill has been outstanding for more than 8 months.
3) Not taking into account other non-recoverable debt owing to Singtel, Starhub and M1.
4) Telling the MP Loh Meng See in 3 visits but seeing his face only once, just before the election (so I was surprised to learn that somebody was privileged to sock MP Seng Hang Thong in the face) but not getting the message through, only to find him no longer an MP after the election.
5) Is it an offence to be poor and jobless?
6) Isn't it an extremely sick policy to be importing foreigners by the thousands when locals cannot secure a livelihood, and then persecuting them for not being able to secure a livelihood? And making slavery out of its citizens for needing to live in a HDB pigeon hole?
7) Isn't a tax that does not distinguish ability to pay, thus robbing the poor to enrich the rich, just cause for a citizen's revolt?

And I shall lead the way. The case is going to trial. PTC 27 September 2006, 2.00pm, Subordinate Court 14. Any advice or financial assistance would be appreciated. And I shall be needing a place to stay.