It's Easy to Cry

by Subhas Anandan

  When we appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, the Law Society was represented by H.P. Godwin, another senior lawyer, and assisted by a young lawyer. They told the Chairman, Choor Singh, that the Law Society was not adducing any evidence against me. They had taken an opinion from the highest authorities and had decided that they would not adduce against me. Choor Singh was surprised and said, “Maybe he has not done anything particular under this section of the Legal Profession Act but look at the other sections. Have you looked at them?” Dumbfounded, Godwin said, “We have looked at all the various sections and as far as we are concerned, Mr Anandan has committed no offence. He cannot be charged for misconduct under any section of the Legal Profession Act. This is the stand of the Law Society.”

  Of course, Choor Singh was very disappointed because he was looking forward to hearing the case. The other person who was also disappointed was my own defence counsel, Francis Seow. He was looking forward to cross-examining the AG Tan Boon Teik.

  Anyway, Choor Singh wrote to Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin and as far as the Law Society was concerned, it was the end of the matter. Of course if Tan Boon Teik wanted to appeal, he could have done it in his own personal capacity. In that case, if he were to lose, he would have to pay costs. He decided not to appeal. Many said that that was the finest moment of the Law Society. It was the first time the Law Society had decided that they would not adduce evidence against their own member. However, the Law Society then and the Law Society now are totally different. The members of the Law Society Council then were made of sterner stuff than those who came on later.

  After Tan Boon Teik retired from office, Chan Sek Keong became the Attorney-General in 1992. He was a High Court Judge before he was transferred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

  WALTER WOON (2008 – 2010)

  Walter Woon was first an academic and then a diplomat and a politician. He was appointed the Second Solicitor-General under the then Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin in 2006. The following year, he was appointed Solicitor-General, and then became Attorney-General from 2008 to 2010. He is well known as an academic and has written books on Company Law. He was also an ambassador of Singapore. As a Nominated Member of Parliament, he was the first Member of Parliament since 1965 to have a Private Member’s Bill become a public law in Singapore. That was the Maintenance of Parents Act which was passed in 1995.

  Walter Woon was held in high regard by both the Bar and the academics. We in the Criminal Bar expected many positive changes from Professor Woon. In some ways, we were disappointed because we felt that he was very hard on accused persons. As the AG, he didn’t have the same compassion as others had. Personally, I think it was his lack of exposure to practice and, being an academic first, he was a man who would command by the book.

  There was the case of Aniza Bte Essa where this woman used her lover, a 16-year-old boy, to kill her husband. The teenager was my client and he was given detention at the President’s pleasure. As the woman was suffering from a mental ailment, her charge was reduced to culpable homicide. The Trial Judge sentenced her to nine years in prison when he could have given her ten years or life. The prosecution decided to appeal and I was surprised that the Attorney-General himself came to argue the Appeal and to tell the Court of Appeal why they should give this woman a life sentence. I was familiar with this case because Noor Mohd Marican, the lawyer for Aniza, was consulting me in many aspects and I was in court during the hearing to observe.

  Walter Woon greeted me and we were cordial to one another. In my mind I was thinking that there was no way he was going to succeed in this appeal because the courts are not prepared to make drastic decisions on accused persons who were unwell.

  This woman had been certified mentally ill. So how could he ask for life imprisonment? He did, and from the word “go” he was getting a tough time because the Judges were interrupting him and asking him questions. The way they reacted to his answers showed that they were not impressed. Subsequently, they asked Noor Marican to reply. Marican, in his own way, said what he had to say, that the Learned Trial Judge who had sentenced his client to nine years was absolutely right and there was no reason for the Court of Appeal to change it. Eventually, the Court of Appeal did not interfere. They did not even raise the sentence an extra year, to ten years. This was to show that what the Attorney-General was asking for could not be allowed because of the sympathy they had for the accused person who was mentally ill.

  By arguing this appeal personally, Walter Woon’s reputation was tarnished. The Bar said that he was ruthless and some of my clients wondered why this case was so important that he had to prosecute the matter himself. There was no clarification.

  It was during his term as Attorney-General that I wrote an article stating that there was a law for the rich and another law for the poor. When it came to composition of offences, I cited several cases that showed that there were stark discrepancies of compounding offences between the rich and the poor. There was a huge uproar and the Law Ministry replied saying that I was absolutely wrong and explained that it was not the situation. I remember replying when I was hospitalised in December 2008, stating that I stand by what I said as I have statistics to prove my case.

  During that time, we had invited Walter Woon to give a lecture at the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore’s (ACLS) annual lecture and he had accepted. When I received him at the entrance of the Supreme Court, he said, “Am I expected to reply to your article during this lecture?” I assured him that he could and he should. He added, “Did you write that article to create controversy?” I replied, “No. I wrote it because I felt that it had to be written and at the time I was writing, it was because of a particular case.” He said, “I do not want to comment about it right now but I will touch on it in my lecture, if you don’t mind.” Of course, I didn’t mind.

  During the lecture, he referred to my article and said that there were reasons why sometimes composition of offences could not be allowed. There could not be any transparency because of particular security reasons; for reasons that they had to review police investigation; and that was the reason there seemed to be this perception that the rich found it easier to compound offences.

  When my turn came to wind up the lecture, after the question and answer session, I told the audience that I felt that I got away “cheaply”. Everybody laughed.

  Walter Woon’s tenure as AG was for two years. It ended in April 2010 and was not renewed. After the two years, he went back to lecture in the university and, clearly, back to the academic world. Walter Woon is a very good lecturer and the students who have been taught by him have a very high regard for him. So I think it turned out well that he went back to academia.

  SUNDARESH MENON (2010 – 2012)

  Koh Juat Jong stood in as Acting Attorney-General for an interim period from April to October 2010, after which Sundaresh Menon was appointed the new Attorney-General. He held office for two years from 2010 to 2012. He is now the Chief Justice.

  We realised that Sundaresh Menon was very relaxed with the practising members of the Bar simply because he was a practising lawyer before his appointment as Attorney-General. He found it very easy to deal with our problems because he had seen them himself when he was a lawyer. However, after a two-year tenure as AG, he was appointed as the Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court and we wondered why. As the Attorney-General, he had been very effective and we appreciated the way he dealt with issues. Some people felt then that he was posted to the Supreme Court possibly because he would be the next Chief Justice.

  STEVEN CHONG (2012 – 2014)

  Steven Chong was appointed Attorney-General for the next two years from June 2012 to June 2014.

  During his tenure, several public figures and government servants were charged. One of them was acquitted and the other found guilty. We always wondered why the AG decided to charge these people in open court when a disciplinary action would have sufficed and they could have avoided the publicity and mud slinging in Court
. Again there were public murmurs as to why a law professor was charged for corruption and for taking gratification from his student. Most people felt that the best thing to do was just to sack the lecturer and at worst, get him out of Singapore. But he was charged. Halfway through trial he defended himself and was convicted. He was serving his sentence while he continued to appeal and the Appellate Court decided that his conviction was wrong.

  All these matters did not reflect very well on Steven Chong as Attorney-General. He is a fine lawyer and a very good judge but I think he made some poor judgement calls as AG.

  When he came in as Attorney-General, you could see he was different. He wanted to meet the Criminal Bar to seek their cooperation and to get them involved in the Criminal Law system. He met up with the Criminal Bar over a luncheon. He was very approachable and I, as the President of the ACLS, could just call him personally and tell him the problem we had at hand and he would invite me over to have coffee with him to discuss the matter.

  However, after two years as Attorney-General, he returned to the High Court Bench and became a Supreme Court Judge. Quite a number of people were happy that he was leaving the Attorney-General’s Chambers because they felt that he was better as a judge than as an AG. I have appeared before Steven Chong when he was a judge and I must say that he was a good and fair Judge. He has made a mark for himself dealing with criminal and civil matters.

  VK RAJAH (current, since 2014)

  After Steven Chong, we were surprised at the announcement that Justice of Appeal, VK Rajah, would be appointed the new Attorney-General. We thought that he would retire from the Bench.

  It was a surprise as we could not imagine the Judiciary without VK Rajah because during the time he was there as a judge, he earned the respect of the Criminal and Civil Bar. His judgements were enlightening. His conduct of cases when we appeared before him was fair. He was very courteous but he could be tough when he needed to be. He had all the qualities of a good judge.

  So we were not very happy to see him leave the Bench to be the latest Attorney-General in June 2014. However, I have shared with DPPs my pleasure in knowing that he would be bringing along with him all the fine qualities of a good judge to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. In this respect, we will have an excellent Attorney-General because one of the main criteria of a good Attorney-General is to be able to exercise discretion judicially and fairly.

  I believe that VK Rajah can do it. He has always been a fair person. I accepted, as a friend, his invitation to have thosai (Indian crepe) with him one morning and I am looking forward to fixing a date with him. I met him at this year’s Hari Raya lunch organised by the Muslim Lawyers Association. I was enjoying the briyani as though it was the end of the world when I noticed that he was eating like a bird. He said that he normally eats very little especially during lunch.

  Softly he said to me, “You know, Mr Anandan, I can tell you this now since I am not a Judge anymore. The Judiciary has a lot of respect for you because you come straight to the point when you argue your cases without massaging the facts. This earned our respect.” I was pleased to hear that and said that it was good to know.

  I told him, “Let me share with you something which I could not do so when you were a Judge. You know, when I was in the Socialist Club in the University, I used to visit your father, Mr TT Rajah, because he was our mentor in many ways and we consulted him on issues that we could not understand. Mr TT Rajah was very passionate about what he believed in and being a Socialist, he practised what he preached. He was not materialistic. He was a humble, forthright man with strong conviction in what he believes. It was really a wonderful experience chatting with him. I remember the first time I met him. He looked at me and asked, ‘Subhas, do you have any dreams?’ I replied to him, ‘Mr Rajah, if you don’t have dreams when you are young, what sort of life are you leading? I can’t imagine a life without dreams.’ He smiled and said, ‘Good but make sure that your dreams are the right dreams.’ With that, all those who were there with me laughed. Then he looked at me and asked, ‘Are you a Hindu?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ Then he specified, ‘Are you a Hindu by choice or by birth?’ I looked at him and said, ‘Both.’ Everybody laughed and he looked at the rest and said, ‘You know, this guy, with the answers he gives, he will be a good lawyer.’ VK Rajah was pleased to hear me reminiscing about his father.

  I had been to see Mr TT Rajah a number of times and I had seen the Attorney-General as a young boy running around in his shorts. When I told this to VK Rajah, he smiled and said, “So you knew my father well.” To me, TT Rajah was one of those whom I admired for what he believed in and he made no apologies for what he believed in. Why should he anyway?

  While at dialysis, I was told that Justice of Appeal VK Rajah would be the new Attorney-General on 25 June 2014. In my opinion, he is a very good judge. I believe that as Attorney-General, he would surpass his achievement as Justice of Appeal because any man who has compassion for his fellow human being cannot fail. I sent him a note, congratulating him and reminding him that he still owed me lunch. I received a quick reply from him, thanking me for my congratulatory note, telling me that we can always have lunch.“Ask my PA to arrange. We can have breakfast or lunch.”He is that sort of man, humble, unpretentious and always caring. I wish we had more judges like him.

  TWENTY-SIX

  AT THE CASINO

  I spent the last weekend of June 2014 at Marina Bay Sands Hotel. My friend, KS Tan, had reserved a suite so I could stay with my wife and son. He said that this would be somewhere for me to relax and not worry about anything. We checked in last Friday. Vimi and Sujesh went first as I had the regular ACLS meeting to chair.

  After the meeting, I joined them with my nephew, Sunil, and my legal associate, Diana Ngiam. We also took the opportunity to visit the casino to understand its operational system as we had a case that required us to do so. It was the first time I was going into this casino.

  After dinner, all of us went into the casino. As it seemed like quite a long walk from the hotel to the casino, Vimi asked if I would prefer to sit in a wheelchair so that she could push me around. I didn’t quite like that as it would attract too much attention. However, it also meant I could cover a longer distance with her and Sujesh. I am getting used to it now with people staring or asking what I’m doing in a wheelchair.

  My main intention of visiting the casino was to understand how it worked, the playing and dealing. I needed to know to help me relate better to my client’s case. We started to gamble small just for the fun of it. After all, we had paid $100 each. Some of the people who recognised me approached to talk, wishing me well and saying that they hope I would recover fast. I was very touched by these people and I asked them, “Why do you come here? Is it because you have nothing else to do or is it because you think you will win money.”

  They said that they enjoy visiting the casino because they want to make money. They have lost quite a lot but hope to recover. Feeling a little concerned for them, I replied, “You could lose more, couldn’t you?” With a wide grin, one of them said, “Yes.” I asked, “Can you afford it?” There was a silence. I didn’t want to push the matter.

  I moved around the casino and looked at the people. They all seemed so intense and most of the faces looked unhappy. I could be reading them wrongly. They could well be enjoying themselves with a serious look on their faces and didn’t mind paying for it. Everybody was concentrating on his own jackpot machine. They had no time to look at anybody else. I was surprised that these people could spend hours gambling, just sitting there and playing the jackpot machines.

  I felt I should not need to pay the $100 entrance fee that was compulsory for Singaporeans. Here in my own country, I am being discriminated by the authorities. Menial and casual workers who hold foreign passports are allowed to go in for free while citizens like us are charged $100. What is the rationale behind this requirement, I do not know. It still doesn’t deter the frequent hardcore gamblers as they are allowed to walk in any ti
me if they possess an annual pass for just $2,000. In my opinion, it seems to be yet another money making situation by the authorities. Even without an annual pass, $100 is not going to stop a gambler from walking into the casino.

  Mr Lee Kuan Yew was adamant that there should be no casinos in Singapore. He was right. However, the younger generation of leaders saw that having a casino in our country could mean a permanent source of generating income. There was little consideration for the ills of society that come with it. Not only one casino was built, but two! They might be making money but at what risks and costs? Having immersed myself in the atmosphere of the casino, I can’t help wondering how many people there can actually afford to gamble. So many social ills have come about because of these casinos but nobody seems to care about that. Everybody is interested in making money, including the authorities. There is no other rationale behind having two casinos other than the fact that we are just interested in making money, hopefully from foreigners. But sadly, it has also tempted and victimised several of our citizens.

  I realise even more so how casinos contribute to the ills of society when clients walk into my office after committing offences — not only in the casinos but thefts and robbery that they were desperate enough to commit just so they could go to the casinos to gamble again. I wonder whether these casinos are good for the country in the long run or will they destroy our social fabric. I don’t think gambling centres like the casinos can be of help or any good to any country. It is immoral for these casinos to exist.

  TWENTY-SEVEN

  1963: LOYOLA COLLEGE

  While sitting here at dialysis and wondering how long more I have to take this, my mind wandered to my growing up years. They were some of the best years of my life. However, I couldn’t help but remember the three months I spent in India, in the city of Madras (Chennai).

  After my ‘O’ level exams, where I obtained a First Grade that made my parents very proud, as I wrote in my first book, my mother realised that I would not qualify for pre-medicine ‘A’ level because I had failed in Chemistry. She wanted me to be a doctor just like Chechy and she was not going to let my failure in Chemistry be a hindrance or obstacle. She decided that she should send me to India where my Chemistry result did not matter; my other grades would suffice. In some ways, I was a very obedient son and tried my best to please my parents. Although I was reluctant to go to India and leave behind all my family and friends, I thought I should give it a try just to please my mother whom I love very dearly.