Francie Seow
Francis Seow
by Teo Soh Lung

“… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” – John Stuart Mill

The People’s Action Party (PAP) government is fond of telling us that it has the mandate of the people and is free to carry out whatever it thinks is “good for the people”. Indeed, the government does get away with a lot of unjust policies which in any first world country would never have seen the light of day. The philosopher’s words are irrelevant to the PAP but his warning in the essay that there could be “tyranny of the majority” can often be seen in Singapore.
Indeed, the government does get away with a lot of unjust policies which in any first world country would never have seen the light of day. The philosopher’s words are irrelevant to the PAP but his warning in the essay that there could be “tyranny of the majority” can often be seen in Singapore.
Take the case of Francis Seow. He was elected by an overwhelming majority of his peers to be a member of the Council of the Law Society of Singapore in 1985. The majority of members in Council subsequently elected him to be the president for a term of two years.
But what did the then prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew together with two other ministers, Mr E W Barker and Prof S Jayakumar and five members of parliament, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (who was the chairman), Messrs Bernard Chen, Chua Sian Chin, Tang See Chim and Dr Tan Cheng Bok did to him shortly after in a televised parliamentary select committee hearing?
bill committee
They approved a bill that allowed the removal of Seow as the president of the law society. Incidentally, five of the eight members of the committee were lawyers.
Swiftly, and by an overwhelming majority of PAP members in parliament, the bill was passed and Francis Seow was unceremoniously removed from council even before his term expired. To be exact, he served as president for barely ten months. That blatant and shameful act though completely legal, was never debated in parliament or outside. Singaporeans did not protest. No one breathed a word because everyone knew then that they could be the next victim. Fear prevailed throughout the 1980s and after.
The constitution which was meant to protect the people with its clear pronouncement of fundamental liberties, has never been the supreme law as intended by the authors. It has time and again been amended and used against the people of Singapore, lending legitimacy to immoral acts of the government.
For ease of reading, I have inserted PM for Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Seow for Francis Seow and deleted the numbering of paragraphs which ran from 414 to 422 (pages B65 to B66) of the Report of the Select Committee on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, 1986.

PM (Lee Kuan Yew): Do you know why those investigations proceeded?
Seow: Why? It is quite obvious why.
PM: Why?
Seow: Okay, you tell me why?
PM: If it is obvious, I want to hear your explanation?
Seow: Well, maybe my explanation is different from yours.
PM: Tell us. I will tell you mine in a moment?
Seow: Yes. You don’t like me to be the President of the Law Society. It is simple as that.
PM: No. I am astounded and outraged that a person with your moral qualities is being asked to uphold the integrity of the Bar?
Seow: And why not, may I ask? If my peers, if the rest of the members of the Bar who know the full circumstances of my two suspensions and convictions still see me fit to elect me, it is not for this Committee nor for you or indeed anyone to say that I should not be.
PM: Mr Seow, when we legislated it never occurred to us for one moment, first, that lawyers of more than 12 years’ standing would vote you into the Council and, second, that the Council members, 10 of them, would vote and make you President. And when that happens, the law will be changed because obviously the lawyers are not fit to look after their own affairs. By the time they elected you as President, I am entitled to tell Members of Parliament and Singaporeans that they are unfit to govern themselves, a right of government which we, as legislators, have delegated. That is why we are here — ?
Seow: I accept that.
PM: To change the law. And if you convince me further that we have not changed it adequately, I will go another step to make sure that this does not happen ever again. It is for me. It is not for you to decide?
Seow: I accept that. But as of now, the fellow members of the Bar, knowing fully what the position is. Look, my life has been an open book. The Straits Times has been canvassing everything about my convictions, my suspension, almost ad nauseam. So these members know it when they voted me in. They are also thinking people and they know what is right and what is wrong.
PM: By that you mean that they can absolve you from all moral blame because they have reposed confidence in you by voting for you?
Seow: I do not know what you mean by morality or —-
PM: You have no sense of right or wrong or shame? —
Seow: Of course, I have the sense of right and wrong as well as the expression of shame, as I am sure all of you do have. As a matter of record, may I mention this, that I was in fact suspended for one year from the 30th April 1973 to the 29th April 1974. That was my first suspension over that unfortunate Gemini affair. I stood and was elected as a Council member in 1976 and 1977.

The full report here

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

AWARE:老年照顾均有女性承担 经济负担庞大

随着我国迈入老化社会,老人长期照护工作成社会必须正视的问题。本地性别平权组织,妇女行动与研究协会(AWARE)表示,大部分老人长期照护工作全交由家中女性照顾者负责,主要原因包括外劳对医疗照护知识的限制,加之正式照护系统未充分善用,造成女性负担增加。 AWARE 近日释出一项报告,其报告邀请22个家庭中的老年照顾者与22位来自学界、医疗专业、照护系统工作人员、以及家居与社区资源服务工作者进行深度质性访谈。 报告指出,大部分老年照顾工作落在女性身上,据2016至2018年的劳动力调查,因家庭责任而离职的女性,增长了9巴仙,从26万3000增长至28万6500。 杜克-国大医学院资深研究员Rahul Malhotra博士也指出,2011年的一项相关调查发现,大部分75以上的老年人均由女性照顾,其中大多数为老年人的女儿、媳妇或妻子。 他表示,“根据研究所显示,我认为在照顾系统方面仍存在性别偏见”。Malhotra博士解释,这是因为亚洲社会包括新加坡所存在的传统价值观,在亚洲社会,无论是小孩或是老年人的照护工作通常都交由女性进行。 他也指出,目前正在进行一项相关议题的大范围量化调查,其初步结果显示老年人的主要照顾者仍以女性居多。 长期照护工作影响女性就职与经济状况 据报告指出,照顾者一旦增加其照护工作的时间,对照顾者的职业状态产生若干影响,而且由减少工作时数逐渐变成完全退出工作,因此也影响了照顾者的经济状况。 由此而言,很多女性在失去工作后,等同失去收入与贡献公积金的能力,许多受访者认为他们至少损失了63巴仙的收入,意味着每年约损失5万6877新元。 另外,高额医疗费用增加每月开销,根据报告指出,要照顾一个三项日常生活活动无法自理人士(Activities…

150万个资外泄“无经济价值”? 金管局慎重 促银行强化验证程序

上周,新保集团惊爆150万病患个人资料被骇外泄,是我国历来遭受最严重的网络攻击行动。引起民众担忧网络隐私存漏洞。 调查显示此次骇客攻击经过精密策划,不像业余犯罪分子,全球只有为数不多国家的先进技术才能做到。网络安全局长许智贤说却表示,泄露的都是“基本统计数据”,无需过于担忧。 据一些过往案例,网安局称将监视网路上或一些不知名网站是否出现可疑迹象,追踪骇客。“根据我们的专业经验这些被盗取的数据没有很高经济价值,较不可能会被泄露上网。” 不过,新加坡金融管理局在昨日(24日)发表文告,慎重要求所有金融机构在采取更严格的用户身份验证程序。当局指出,所有银行已受指示,要求用户登录账号,需进行双重验证(PIN和一次性密码)。 金管局要求金融机构避免依赖基本信息(姓名、身份证号、地址、性别、种族和出生日)来验证用户,提防不法分子可能以这些资讯假冒客户。 金融机构受促实行更进一步的验证程序,如一次性密码,PIN 码、指纹认证和最后转账户口和日期等。 金管局也要求所有金融机构立即进行风险评估,在他们提供的服务中是否有发生如新保集团被骇的可能,避免更多用户个资被盗取,用在不法用途。 金管局网络安全官陈耀胜指出,该局将于各金融机构紧密配合,提供牢固的网络防御,让用户放心进行网络转账。同时,他也呼吁民众保管个人密码,定时清理上网记录等,若发现可疑活动,应立即通知银行。 “民众可浏览网站gosafeonline和SingCert,学习更多网络安全知识。” 虽然网安局长许智贤表达“无需担忧”,但如今已牵动金管局发声明,要求所有金融机构采更严格验证程序,说明个资外泄可大可小,不排除不法分子假冒身份套取更多利益的可能性。只要涉及财富,就有可能孕育网络罪案。 全球网安第一破功…

Singapore is 17th most prosperous country: 1st or 3rd world?

By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the article “S’pore is 17th…

证券投资者协会抛23问题质问凯发集团

新加坡证券投资者协会(SIAS)代表证券投资者,向凯发集团(Hyflux)董事会致函,对该集团的运营、估值和董事会信用责任问题表达严正关注,罗列23道问题,以让证券持有人知情并作出明智决定。 在由该协会主席大卫杰乐署名的信函提到,债权人和投资者们们整理出一些问题,要求凯发集团董事会回答,包括几乎所有凯发资产都存在严重缺陷,例如在阿曼 Qurayyat和Magtaa的海水淡化厂有运作缺陷,无法达到营运容量;大泉水电厂和天津大港新泉海水淡化厂蒙受亏损,以及Tuasone和阿尔及利亚的Tlemsen项目无法完成。 投资者质问凯发董事会,究竟对这些主要资产进行了怎样的监管?为何这些严重缺陷却没有在年报上公布? “凯发筹集了五亿新元的永久债券和四亿元的优先股,这些资金要如何使用?对比招股说明书的实际使用情况又是如何?”债权人也质问,来自股东500万元的贷款如何使用在大泉水电厂上。 负现金流仍支付股息 与此同时,凯发集团自2009年以来就呈现负运营现金流。但有没有把这种情况告知债权人和股东?何以在负现金流下仍能继续支付股息,至累积更多债务?在2017年前每年都报告盈利而非亏损,令投资者直问:这怎么可能? 协会也要求凯发出示大泉水电厂的现金储备和现有市值,并且质疑它的14亿元账面价值被高估了。”事实上,在2018年,凯发曾接受比马银行五亿元债务耕地的脱售献议,故此至少高估了九亿元。“再者,投资者们也不认为电价低是导致该厂亏损的原因。 亏损时总裁仍获高额薪酬 与此同时,协会也质疑当股东和债权人都在蒙受投资亏损时,总裁林爱莲仍能从34巴仙普通股权中获得6千万元的股息。在2017年的薪酬和分红分别达到75万元和1百万元。同年,凯发却亏损高达1亿1560万元。在这不久的五个月后,凯发集团就因为亏损巨额资金和建筑项目,向法庭申请保护令。 ”敢问林爱莲在凯发重组中扮演的角色?何以在重组过程中她没有将其所得收益贡献出来?“ 协会的信函也提到,在2017年凯发年报,支付给凯发关键领导层的总薪酬高达265万元。何以该集团可以在当下艰难财务环境下,仍能继续支付高额薪酬?这些公司领导理应清楚公司面对的情况,也要负上很大的责任。