Vimi has been a pillar of sense and strength for me. Every day I would bug her. I tried to pass all my misery to her. She would take it very gracefully and tell me how important I am in her life and my family’s life and that I should not give up. I should not just talk about dying. There was a purpose in living. She is a source of encouragement and my son, while in Nottingham, sends short messages to me through his mother, as I don’t possess a cell phone, to remind me that there is somebody there who wants me alive. Suddenly I somehow want to see him graduate. I won’t be lucky enough to see him get married and have children but I said to God, “God, at least let me see my son graduate. That is the least you can do for me. After all, I am not such a bad person. I have done good things in my life”. I kept on saying that to God. But, sometimes I feel that He doesn’t hear anymore. I feel that I have been abandoned by God. But I suppose we will never know what plan God has for us.
I take consolation in knowing that Vimi is always lying beside me, massaging my back to ease the pain that I constantly have from sitting at dialysis. She does this for me every night in the hope that I would fall asleep, and sometimes I do for a short while. I find listening to music every night at bedtime very soothing and comforting. Vimi had compiled a selection of my favourite songs that includes Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam and English songs. My choices lately are more meaningful and less upbeat. The one song that I must listen to every night, at least three to four times, is “If Tomorrow Never Comes” by Ronan Keating. On listening to the lyrics again and again, one night Vimi asked if it spoke my sentiment. I told her, “Yes, every single word.” I am not good at expressing how I feel for her but the words to this song speaks volumes. I hope when she listens to it, she takes comfort in knowing how I feel for her.
Vimi and Subhas enjoying a quiet moment on their garden swing.
TEN
YOU ARE MY SUNSHINE
Some time ago, Phang Wah also known as James Phang, was almost nominated ‘Businessman of the Year’. His enterprise, one he personally built up, was called Sunshine Empire Private Limited. However, before he was given the nomination, he was called up by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) on suspicion of knowingly carrying on the business of Sunshine Empire for the fraudulent purpose of selling prime packages supposedly yielding high returns to trusting eager investors, or subscribers for thousands and maybe even millions of dollars. Many other people were arrested, and subsequently his wife, Madam Neo Kuon Huay, and his friend, Jackie Hoo Choon Cheat, were charged under various sections of the Companies Act (Cap 50) as well as the Penal Code.
The scheme was not a new one. It was an old scheme known as ‘pyramid selling’ with a new twist. Previously, pyramid selling was considered illegal because subscribers got nothing in return for the money they paid to the company. In this particular case, Sunshine Empire gave subscribers a packet of goodies and discounts for joining. The company claimed that the profits were shared between them and the subscribers. Upon payment of subscription, the returns could be as high as from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. The success of the Scheme could be attributed to Madam Neo, who was referred to as the First Lady of Sunshine. She was alleged to have brought in millions of dollars.
Word got around that Sunshine Empire paid very good interest rates or profits if money was invested with them. Soon, there was a stampede of people rushing to the company’s office with cash and cheques. People were withdrawing large sums of money from their bank accounts, and the banks began to wonder what was happening. In time, they found out that Sunshine Empire was collecting these monies. The banks realised that they were losing a lot of customers due to this promise of high returns that could not be matched by any legal financial institution. It was just financially impossible for them to match Sunshine Empire’s promises.
It was subsequently proven in Court that a day would come when Phang and Sunshine Empire would not be able to meet their obligations as they would run out of money; this was because the company did not operate any substantive profit generating business, and therefore had no sustainable means of funding the high returns paid out to subscribers.
An expert in forensic accounting from London who came to Singapore and gave evidence for the prosecution was not impressive. He said that this type of business woud definitely not be sustainable and was doomed to fail. When I cross-examined him, he said that there was a possibility that any business could fail and that a company that officially looked very good could end up failing, while a company that looked bad on paper could become successful when the management turned it around with new ideas and new people. As far as the defence was concerned, his evidence was neither here nor there.
The expert that we engaged from Hong Kong gave evidence that Sunshine Empire could succeed provided certain remedial actions were undertaken. Further, he felt that it was too premature for CAD to arrest those involved because arresting them would destroy the company. In fact, when I cross-examined the CAD’s officer-in-charge, I said that in the event these people were acquitted on the basis that they had not done anything wrong, his department would be sued the millions of dollars which the Sunshine Empire and the subscribers lost. He had no response and just kept quiet.
Finally, after numerous arguments and testimonials, a fair number of investors felt that they were misled while others said they invested because they believed in the company. Looking at all the evidence presented, District Judge Jasvender Kaur found all three guilty. Subsequently, she sentenced Phang to nine years’ imprisonment and Hoo to six months. As for Madam Neo, she was given a fine, even though the prosecution asked for a custodial sentence. We applied for bail, pending appeal. It was granted.
The appeal was heard before Justice Tay Yong Kwang. Even though Justice Tay has a reputation for being a tough judge, meting out sentences that can be higher than what other judges would give, he was quite fair in this case. He’s a very experienced judge, having presided over many criminal cases. He reserved his judgement, taking into account the prosecution’s appeal that Phang’s sentence was too low and that Neo should have been sent to jail. Eventually, Justice Tay dismissed both the appeals brought by the defence and the prosecution.
I decided to pose some questions of public interest. Strangely enough, Justice Tay agreed with me that there were questions of public interest that had to be heard by the Court of Appeal. He dismissed one out of the five questions that I posed and referred the four questions to the Court of Appeal. Later, Mr Philip Fong, counsel for the co-accused, Jackie Hoo, wrote in for permission to refer the same questions to the Court of Appeal. Justice Tay said that since permission was granted to James Phang, Jackie Hoo should be allowed as well.
As I started to present my case at the Court of Appeal, which comprised Justices of Appeal VK Rajah, Andrew Phang and Chao Hick Tin, Justice of Appeal VK Rajah asked me in his usual very candid way, “Mr Anandan, I do not know about my colleagues, but I believe that there is no question of public interest, so what is your position?” I said, “If you believe and if your colleagues believe that there is no question of public interest, then there is nothing more to argue.” He looked at me, smiled and before I could continue with my comment, they asked Philip Fong for his opinion. Philip Fong argued that since Justice Tay had referred the case to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal had no choice but to answer the questions of public interest.
The Justices had to determine whether they had the power to dismiss our application. It was a very important point that I emphasised when I was asked to continue with my submissions. I started arguing on the law and the facts, and Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang, if I remember correctly, asked me, “Do you agree that if we decided that there was no question of public interest, we don’t have to listen to this appeal?” I very candidly told him, “You are right. If this Court decides there is no question of public interest, whatever Justice Tay said is not relevant.”
They replied that they would make up their minds immediately after listening to the DPP. I pleaded with t
hem, “Please consider these points once more before you make up your mind.” Fortunately, they agreed. They adjourned for half an hour. But when they came back, they said, “We have decided that we should not accept your arguments because we don’t agree that there are questions of public interest, but out of deference to counsel, we will answer the questions.” Unfortunately, all the answers were not good for the clients.
The purpose of including this case in this book is to show what human greed can lead to. It is sad that there will always be people who try and capitalise on the greed of others. The people who bought into Sunshine Empire and lost money are not just ordinary people. Some of them are senior financial controllers and financial analysts. They are professionals who went into this scheme thinking they would make some quick money. When I cross-examined them, I would always ask whether they had read the clause in their contract with Sunshine Empire which said that the return of investment was at the discretion of the company. Did they understand what they were signing? They said they knew but did not pay any attention to it because they were attracted by the returns they would get. They didn’t think it was an important issue when they signed the contract. Hundreds of people lost money. Some of them lost all their savings; some lost even their CPF savings that were withdrawn to invest with Sunshine Empire. Some of them borrowed money from their friends and relatives so that they could invest. All because they thought they were going to make quick money.
This incident shows that Singaporeans, and people generally, still have a lot to learn. They need to know that it is not easy to make money, as made out in the way the scheme was advertised. There is nothing like hard work.
James Phang Wah is a brilliant man and I think he is one person who could have done very well in any venture that he chose to start. I am very sure that if he were to use the intelligence he has wisely, he could have started a venture that would have made him very rich, the legal way. Unfortunately, he decided to take a shortcut, thinking that he could outsmart everybody, including the authorities. In fact, during his confrontation with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), when people were advised against investing money with Sunshine Empire, he still managed to convince potential investors that CASE was mistaken about his company. CASE was a bit taken aback by Phang and his associates’ aggressive stand.
Phang and his associates decided to contact CAD themselves to set up a meeting with them to clear certain issues. They wanted to explain their actions and defend the legality of their investment ventures. The CAD were prepared to have a meeting with them. However, when Phang, Hoo and the rest went for the meeting, they were promptly arrested.
When I cross-examined the CAD’s officer-in-charge, he admitted that they had misled them so that they would go to the CAD. I said, “You didn’t have to lie. They wanted to go to CAD anyway as they wanted to have a meeting with you. So why do you have to resort to such actions?” I told him that if Phang and his associates were acquitted, the chances are he would be sued, and his department would be sued for destroying the ongoing Sunshine Empire that was supporting hundreds of people.
ELEVEN
SECOND CHANCE
I seldom take on cases from other lawyers unless I have no choice. It makes it even worse when I have to take over cases from good friends.
On one occasion, a father walked in to my office and said, “My son is being charged for culpable homicide and he needs a lawyer.” I said, “If it is culpable homicide, have you been given a lawyer by the court as his original charge was murder?” He replied, “Yes, but before the lawyer could do anything, it was the prosecutor who reduced the charges to culpable homicide. The person who is acting for my son now is Peter Fernando. My son wants you to take over the case from him.”
I asked the father, “Why do you want to change lawyers? He’s been doing all the work. I am sure he will be able to do a good job. I know him personally and I know his father personally too.” He replied, “I do not want to change lawyers myself as I, too, am a friend of Peter Fernando. I have gone to his house, we have shared a few drinks together and have become good friends. But my son, who is in prison, insists that I must change lawyers and you must be the one.” If you don’t accept the brief, he will still insist that I find someone else to replace Peter Fernando. So what do you say?”
I replied, “Alright, we will come to a compromise. Don’t discharge Peter Fernando. I will do the argument of sentencing and Peter Fernando will do whatever arguments there are to be done. He will talk about the background and how this offence of culpable homicide came about.” The father said he would talk to his son.
When he came back to me, he said that his son was agreeable to this arrangement but he still wanted me to take the role of the lead counsel. Reassuringly, I replied, “Yes. I will be the lead counsel because I will be arguing the sentence. There is nothing to argue in this case because the prosecutor has already reduced the charge to culpable homicide.”
The father accepted the arrangement and I met with his son, Sadayan Ajmeershah. A pleasant young man. He and I got along well. I asked him, “Why do you want me to do the sentence?” He said, “Well, I heard about your reputation while here in prison and I think I got a better chance if you do my mitigation on sentence.”
“Fair enough,” I replied.
We went to court and the same statement of facts was read by the prosecution. After Peter had finished his explanation of what happened, I took over and argued why the sentence should not be life imprisonment. I argued for the courts to be fair. “You should give him ten years. There is no need to punish him so hard with life imprisonment,” I argued.
You must remember that at that time, judges could only choose between imposing a sentence of up to ten years or life imprisonment. There was nothing in-between. That came about only after long campaigning, and countless dialogues with the prosecution and with the Minister for Law. The minister finally accepted the arguments and allowed judges to impose a sentence of up to 20 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment. But prior to this change of law and at the time of this trial, it was either up to ten years or life imprisonment.
The most startling thing about the mitigation was my client’s letter to the court. He said to the judge, “I did not know how much my father loves me. I only realised how much he loves me when I saw how he was going around looking for lawyers, begging them to help me. I suddenly realised that the man who has shown no affection to me all these years, actually loves me deeply.” He said that the realisation of how much his father loved him was very important. Now that he knew how much his father cared for him, he wanted a second chance, to show that he was remorseful and to try and help his father financially, morally and in every other way possible.
I think the judge was very touched by the letter and told the accused, “Well, it takes a tragedy like this for you to realise how much your father loves you. Even though your lawyer asked that I should give only ten years, and not to give life imprisonment, I will give you nine years. I will take away one year. Originally, I wanted to give you ten years. But I am looking at the mitigation, reading the letter and I feel that there should be a further reduction. So I am giving you nine years.”
Everybody was happy. I told Sadayan that he was lucky the judge was very sympathetic because of his letter. He said, “Mr Anandan, everything I said in the letter is true. To me, my father’s love is the most important thing. All my life, I grew up thinking that my father never loved me. After I got into this trouble, I now realise how much he cared for me. Surprisingly, I realise how much he means to me too.”
With deep concern for his future, I asked Sadayan, “What do you intend to do?” He said, “When I come out of prison, I will be a reformed person. I will not hang out with those people whom I have been befriending and getting into trouble with. I will try and get a good job. I will do my best to help my father financially. I will return to him the money that he has spent on me.” He added, “Thank you very much, Mr Anandan. I understand you ch
arged my father only a nominal fee and I thank you for the low fees. People in prison told me that your fees are high but I know now that it is not true. I know that you are a man with a kind heart. I hope one day, I will be able to repay you.”
Then he said to me earnestly, “You only have one kidney, do you want a kidney from me?” I was a little irritated but grateful. I said, “No. I did not help you for that.” I added, “I helped you because I know that you are not a bad person. You were thrown into circumstances which made you do things which you otherwise would not do.” As I needed to hear his commitment to reform, I asserted, “Keep your promise. Look after your father as he is getting old. I sincerely hope that when you come out, you will look after him.”
He promised, “Yes, Mr Anandan, I will look after my father. I will visit you too.” Feeling a sense of relief that he would do good on a second chance, I thanked him.
It is hearing such repentance and promises to reform that makes my work so meaningful. I always feel that society at large is very judgemental about ex-inmates. Some of them are genuinely eager to turn over a new leaf. It is very sad when, in all reality, it becomes hard when they try to get back on track but fail to do so as they have already been ostracised by society. Inevitably, without proper guidance and support, many fall back into a life of crime to survive. I hope that some time soon, society will become more understanding and compassionate, and welcome them back into the fold.
TWELVE
REBELS OF THE 1970S
Tan Wah Piow was a student leader in the 1970s. He, along with a girl called Juliet Chin, led the students’ movement against the authorities on things that they perceived to be unfair or unconstitutional. When I left university in 1970, together with friends like Sim Yong Chan and Sunny Chew, we were under the impression that there would be no one else to carry on creating this kind of so-called ‘trouble’ against the authorities. We were all young and idealistic and shared a common dislike for the authorities. But, we were resigned that what has to be, has to be, and if the students’ movement was going to die, so be it. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I found that there were still people, like Wah Piow and Juliet, ‘rebelling’ in the university.
It's Easy to Cry Page 5