Council of Elders For Singapore

ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 23 APRIL 2007

In the recent debate on pay hikes for ministers and civil servants, some Singaporeans were surprised that some of our public servants continue to earn pensions upon retirement.

Many are asking what is it that they do that justifies such a perquisite, which those in the private sector do not get. After all, they have already been well rewarded in office with their private sector-benchmarked salaries.

Not surprisingly, point-by-point responses have come from the Public Service Division (PSD). This is not the first time the PSD has had to deal with such issues. Nor is it going to be the last.

No doubt the issue will be raised at every General Election, and even more so whenever Parliament sits to debate proposed tweaks to the pay of such public servants.

There is one more effective way to deal with these questions: Form a Council of Elders, which can function like a second house of Parliament, debating all Bills after their first reading in the House.

Immediately, the Council of Elders will become an effective and independent second-level check for sensitive or important issues before Parliament. In this way, these senior leaders are also empowered to continue to add value to our law-making process, even after their retirement.

A few other Commonwealth jurisdictions have such a second house, including India and the United Kingdom, whose laws we utilise in our legislative system.

Such public involvement will more than justify the pensions our elderly public servants continue to earn. At the same time, it enables Singapore to better put to use a pool of retiring talent, while preserving and appreciating the legacies they have left for future generations.

In recent years, we have seen several high-profile retirements. These individuals have at times voiced their concerns about policies pursued by the ruling party.

Retired Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow, the architect of various aspects of the Singapore economy, has written a highly-acclaimed book, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy, and made many sit up with his public comments on topical issues like the civil service, the deployment of our elites, and public transport.

Mr Tan Kin Lian, the innovator who turned a fledgling local insurance cooperative into a $16-billion powerhouse, has also been vocal in sharing his thoughts on the issues of the day through letters to the media. Most recently, he weighed in with his own suggestion on the formula for calculating ministerial pay.

We have also seen the retirement of various batches of Members of Parliament, several of whom were prominent and outspoken during their tenure, but who faded from the public eye as soon as they left Parliament. Former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon and veteran politician Tan Cheng Bock are just two names that come to mind.

We need to recognise that this older group of persons carry a sense of history, which can be useful in our legislative process.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong recently shared: "The laws that we have today are a product of the interaction of forces and ideas over the course of our nation's history. To understand the law and its relevance well, a lawyer needs to understand the context in which laws are made, why they were made and what their objectives were."

His comments could apply to our legislators whose key duty is to formulate and pass laws. Such a sense of history can be best achieved through a Council of Elders, where our talented senior citizens will be an essential part of the legislative process and be able to criticise Bills in a well-informed and constructive manner.

A key issue here is whether such a Council of Elders should have voting rights over all Bills tabled in Parliament.

It is unlikely that any elected leader who has toiled hard to win the support of the people will agree to this. Nevertheless, we also need to recognise that, as long as there are committed, courageous and credible People's Action Party leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong, there is no way the party is going to lose its parliamentary majority.

And in such a democracy where one party commands an overwhelming majority, it may be useful for a second house to have some voting rights, but with elected leaders always retaining the right to veto decisions of the second house.

The Council of Elders will bring the diversity of our legislative process to a new level, where schemes such as Non-Constituency or Nominated Members of Parliament have arguably had limited success.

With the achievement of its First World status and a greying population, it may be a good time for Singapore to look into a Council of Elders.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Reader’s Question: Negative Publication by Others

QUESTION

I specifically read through some of your entries regarding self-regulating of blogs and they are indeed enlightening.

However, I also wonder about similar content on a different platform such as mailing lists and public forums.

It appears to me that bloggers have been "victimized" in a way, since enforcement is critically concentrated around blogs.

In public forums, it is not uncommon to see outright demeaning of certain policies, which I believe, in the blogging community, would have been dealt with in a harsh manner.

90% of forum owners feel that it is enough to display a disclaimer citing the posters are responsible for their own input.

However, given the moderating powers of the forum management, does that disclaimer automatically relieve them of responsibility entirely?

ANSWER

At the outset, no one should be afraid to criticize public policies or other decisions taken by policy-makers.

In making any criticism, avoid making defamatory, insensitive or seditious remarks, which could attract legal claims.

Personally, I find it helpful to be constructive and to back my criticism as far as reasonably possible with facts.

If you have an open mailing list (that is anyone can reply or send messages to the all on the list), an online bulletin board or a comments section on your website, some find it useful to have a disclaimer to say that those who contribute to such platforms are absolutely responsible for the views they share.

This, however, does not absolve you of all blame/responsibility since you can be deemed a distributor or publisher of the remarks, even though you may not have authored it.

Generally, to what extent you can be held liable for such remarks will depend on the specific fact situation and the applicable law.

This is why many owners of such platforms have moderators. But they know it is very difficult to moderate with absolute effectiveness. As such, they also accept feedback or complaints.

If a person finds negative remarks being made about him / her, the person can write to the platform providers to have such remarks removed.

As the owner of such a platform, it is recommended you apologise and accede to all such requests that are fairly made.

By doing so, it will show you are taking reasonable steps to address the complaint and are cooperating to minimise harm to the person who has been offended.

This can go some way in mitigating your liability to the person.

However, if you wish to avoid the hassle of all possible legal liability, I know of at least one information technology law specialist who suggests not having any open mailing list, online bulletin board or comments section on a website.

But in my experience running mailing lists or managing comments section on websites, I find moderating not too much of hassle and reasonably manageable.

Indeed, as a result of feedback from another blog, I am now comfortable enough to leave the comments section on this website unmoderated. It is four months since I did so and I have not had any problems.

Nevertheless, if any person is offended by comments he or she reads here, they are welcomed to write to me and I will be happy to look into the person’s request.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Reader's Question: Studying Law

QUESTION

I've been wanting to study law in a private institution, right here in Singapore. This is because I do not have a full A-level certificate.

I've been told that I have to do the diploma in law programme first, before proceeding to year 2 of the LLB programme.

Is this true? If so, upon successfully completing the degree, what are the possible paths for me to take?

Or should I just go over to Great Britain (England & Wales) and do the law programme there; be called to the Bar in Singapore and then practise?

ANSWER

Before doing anything, you must first reflect about pursuing a law course.

Why law and not any other subject? How strong are your reasons for wishing to do law? Are you willing to stick your neck out, and have your views tested or criticized?

Like the profession itself, law is a very demanding course. Do you think you have the discipline that you will need to put in the hard work that is expected and required of you?

Based on your question, I will assume you wish to enter legal practice in Singapore and have the necessary passion and will to do so.

TWINNING PROGRAMMES NOT RECOGNISED

Unfortunately, the ‘twinning’ route that you are considering will NOT enable you to practise in Singapore.

It is a requirement of the Legal Profession Act in Singapore that you must complete all the years of your English law degree on a full-time basis in Great Britain.

Plus, your university must be one of those recognised under the Legal Profession Act.

ADMISSION TO LAW SCHOOL

You need very good academic credentials to get into a law school in Singapore or Great Britain.

If you do not have a full A-Level certificate - that is you performed below average - it’s going to be very difficult.

SINGAPORE LAW SCHOOLS

It’s more competitive in Singapore since over a thousand individuals apply for about 300 places every year. But if you get into a Singapore law school, it’s easier for you to practise in Singapore.

However, I understand Singapore law schools prefer to take in students with very good A-Level grades.

BRITISH LAW SCHOOLS

My personal experience is that British law schools tend to be more open towards mature applicants (those above 23 years old) and applicants who may have done other pre-university programmes such as diplomas or foundation studies.

If you are going to England, you will need to set aside a budget of about S$180,000. This budget should be adequate to cover not just the law degree (at a university outside London) but also the professional courses that you need to do to qualify as a lawyer.

A British graduate needs an upper second class honours degree to practise in Singapore, whereas a local graduate needs only a lower second class honours degree.

If you get a lower second class honours degree in England, you must get relevant work experience and pass an interview with the Board of Legal Education in Singapore.

After you graduate in England or are approved by the Board of Legal Education, you will need to come back to Singapore and do a mandatory postgraduate diploma at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law for 1 year.

Then, for another year, you need to complete the Practice Law Course and do pupillage. This last year is normally funded by a law firm in Singapore.

WAY FORWARD

You can consider completing the Diploma in Law but ensure it’s from a credible institution. You will also need to do very well in the diploma in order to get into one of the British law schools recognised under Singapore legislation.

Alternatively, universities have foundation programmes that you can undertake or you can re-do your A-Level examinations.

Personally, if you can afford it, I will encourage you to consider studying law at my alma mater, University of Leicester.

The University of Leicester also has an undergraduate foundation programme, which may give you an advantage in helping you to qualify for the law degree either in Leicester or elsewhere.

Another place for foundation studies you may wish to consider is St. Andrew's, Cambridge.

Feel free to write to me if you need help getting in touch with these institutions of learning.

CAUTIONARY ADVICE

Finally, be careful about what others share with you, including what you have just read above!

As any good lawyer would, one needs to verify the sources of information.

Visit the British Council. Consult the Board of Legal Education. Go back to your junior college and speak to your education counsellors.

All these persons are usually good resources to verify such information. They are also in a better position to look at your specific circumstances and advise you about what to do.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Review Films Act To Compensate Film-Makers

LETTER SENT TO PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND THE ARTS, SINGAPORE, ON 21 APRIL 2007

Most policies in Singapore have a robust way of adapting and addressing the evolving needs and aspirations of individuals living or working in Singapore. When your fellow public servants visit the world over, they go out of their way to address how pragmatically and uniquely we have crafted our legislative framework.

Yet that same level of robustness, uniqueness and pragmatism has not been seen in our media policies for some years now. I am referring in particular to your team's approach in handling films, which appears to be dated and reflective on an old era.

We need to move beyond reflecting practices of an old Singapore. An old Singapore where to cut a garlic one would have used a hammer rather than a knife. Or where one had a habit of cornering people in a cul-de-sac and beating the living daylights out of them.

FILMS BAN NOT EFFECTIVE

In the last 3 years now, your team has banned at least three films made by Singaporeans and your team compels our film-makers to surrender all their copies of such films.

By the time your team acts, copies of these films have already been legally sold or screened overseas. And eventually buyers of these films, through anonymous postings and provoked by your team's act to ban such films, make the films freely available on the Net via innovations such as Google Video or Youtube.

How ironic it is that one only has to search the key word "Singapore" on these innovations and these banned films will come up together with interactive clips that your team has sanctioned.

As a result, these film-makers suffer huge losses both in expense and potential profits.

FILMS BAN DISRESPECTS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

In the past years, Singapore has under the auspices of its Ministry of Law gone out of its way to promote Singapore as a centre for intellectual property and as a place where individuals place a sacrosanct value on intellectual property. And I have great respect for our Ministry of Law and its efforts to promote Singapore law in our hinterlands and beyond.

Unfortunately, your team's efforts to confiscate and destroy intellectual property can only undermine these efforts.

This will also exarcebate the situation where film-makers and intellectual property innovators, especially local talents, choose another place over Singapore. There is at least one article in The Straits Times which touches on this situation today.

Your team must take steps to restore faith among others, with respect to how we view intellectual property. Even your National Internet Advisory Committee is in support of this view when they put forward in their annual report, "The NIAC believes that it is necessary for the regulatory framework to be reviewed regularly to ensure they keep pace with technology and market developments. But the NIAC also recommends that MDA and other regulators continue to adopt a light touch and pragmatic approach wherever possible, when reviewing and updating their regulatory policies for the Internet, so as not to unduly stifle the growth and development of the Internet and other new media services."

REVIEW FILMS ACT

I have shared in the past that a review of the Films Act is long overdue, and have suggested some strategies to do so:
a. It is better not to ban these films but to require them to include warnings or declarations.
b. Conditions can also be imposed on where and how party political films can be screened.
c. Tickets could be subject to a minimum price of $20 - half of which could be donated to the film commission and the National Arts Council.

COMPENSATE PRODUCERS OF BANNED FILMS

I now wish to make another suggestion. Your team, in the interest of promoting respect for intellectual property, should look into compensating local film-makers whose films are sacrificed at the altar of public interest or public confidence.

I think it would be foolish of me to request a policy where loss of profits to the film-maker are compensated but, at the very least, it is in Singapore's interest to compensate the film-maker for the expense and time he or she has incurred in making the film.

As much as it is in your team's interest to protect public confidence in the work of Singapore's ruling class, it is also in the public interest to encourage the work of these film-makers who are an important section of Singapore's knowledge-based flight of success.

Otherwise, Singapore will only be worse off by such policies of a dark age that your team appears inclined to pursue. And it will be no surprise to have adjectives such as draconian, barbaric and uncivilised pelted at Singapore.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Print When Really Need To

Recently, I got in touch with a friend that I haven't met for some 3 years now.

I wrote to him at his office, a medium tier law firm in England. His reply came back within the hour.

His e-mail had the often seen disclaimer on unintended recipients and confidential content: "This email and any attachment is intended for use only by specified addressees and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete the original and any copy of this message and notify the writer by email or telephone. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused."

But what was refreshing about the e-mail was this one line in bold green:

"Please consider the environment - do you really
need to print this?"

I was captivated by this line. From time to time, I have sought to encourage my friends and colleagues to reduce their use of printing paper.

The odd recycling campaign and the periodic reminder have had limited success. In the absence of such campaigns or reminders, people just tend to go back to their old wasteful habits.

But here is an organisation - quite clearly a socially responsible one - which is consciously championing care for the environment.

Instead of incorporating a corporate slogan or tagline in their default header or footer, they are prompting others to re-think their use of paper.

Can you imagine the effect of receiving such a constant reminder from your colleagues, competitors, clients, suppliers or friends?

At least to me, in the technology-driven world we live in today, there can be no better way to encourage others to care for the environment on a daily basis.

Do spare a thought for our environment.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Using Public Transport

Last year, a friend approached me about whether or not he should by a new car simply to commute from work to home and back.

Some weeks back, my sister complained that I should get a car. She tried to argue that taking public transport didn't befit me as a young professional. (Of course, it was only later I realised her ulterior motive was to make me purchase a car, which she would use!)

Another friend also told me how half his salary goes towards paying for a hire purchase loan and maintenance of his car.

All these individuals live in a city where the public transport system enables a person to get from one place to another fairly easily and where it can be quite expensive to keep a private vehicle.

It is really not necessary to drive a car in a city unless you:
a. are in a role which requires you to travel a lot from one place to another within a short period of time; or
b. have a big family to drive around; or
c. live or work in an area where a public transport system is as good as inexistent; or
d. have medical reasons or other special circumstances.

Driving a private vehicle can be a sheer waste of one's funds, which can be put to better use elsewhere. Plus, a private vehicle only adds to the pollution which one already finds in the city.

I take the public transport - bus or train - daily. When I am late or need to get to a place quickly, I take a taxi. I find myself saving money, which I can put to use in other aspects of my life.

Spend wisely. Be environment friendly. Use public transport.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav