SINGAPORE: “I don’t make any apologies for that. I would do it again.”
That's what lawyer and newly appointed Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong says when asked about defending the founder of City Harvest Church (CHC) Kong Hee in a legal case that captured the public’s attention.
The marathon case, one of the longest-running tials in Singapore’s legal history, involved the misuse of S$50 million in church funds and lasted from May 2010 till early this year.
Mr Tong, 48 and MP for the Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC), was appointed Senior Minister of State for Law and Health in the Cabinet reshuffle earlier this year.
About a week before taking on the role, he sat down with me to look back on his legal and political career.
While he made headlines for his new political appointment, he was mentioned in the media more often while he was handling the CHC case.
As with many high-profile legal cases, the lawyers representing the defendants came under fire and Mr Tong, being an integral part of the CHC defence team, was no exception.
“People make rude comments about me being the 'City Harvest lawyer'. It’s regarded as not something that a PAP Member of Parliament (MP) or senior lawyer should be doing. But it’s my job. The case came to the firm and I was asked to take it on.
"Even (Law) Minister K Shanmugam says that everyone deserves a chance to have a legal representation of his choice and that’s something in our constitution. So, if we back down because people criticise the lawyers who are taking on these jobs, then I think our society and our rule of law will be all the poorer,” he says steadfastly.
To listen to the full interview, click here.
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
In February this year, the Government said it believed the sentences meted out to those convicted in the case were too low.
Law Minister K Shanmugam said the issue would be looked into to ensure that legislation provides for higher penalties for senior officers who commit criminal breaches of trust (CBT).
He was reflecting the Government's position on the apex court’s decision to uphold shorter jail terms for CHC founder Kong Hee and five other former church leaders.
This resulted from a new interpretation of the Penal Code section governing CBT offences, which led to the Court of Appeal ruling that company directors, governing board members or key officers of charities and officers of societies who commit CBT could be jailed up to seven years - compared to employees being liable for a maximum 15 years imprisonment.
Some members of the public then wondered why Mr Tong, who was then the deputy chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Home Affairs and Law, hadn’t brought up the gap in the law to the Government earlier.
City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee leaving court on Apr 7, 2017. Next to him is Marine Parade GRC MP and lawyer Edwin Tong. (Photo: Howard Law)
Was his position as defence lawyer conflicting with his position as member of the GPC and MP?
“Firstly, there’s a flaw in the law because the law was not changed from many years ago," he says.
"I was focused on what the legal provisions were. The legal provisions would require that the level of sentencing could not exceed a certain level. The charges had already been made by then. You can’t change legislation and apply it ex post facto. Whatever one might point out or not point out, the law as it stood at the time of the offenses were crystallised, would apply. So it would not have made a difference to my case.”
But would he have been more likely to point out the gap in the law himself if he hadn’t been a defence lawyer handling the CHC case?
“I and all my colleagues saw the gap and we argued it early on. We pointed out that the provision the prosecution sought to use was inappropriate, that in fact, the right provision should have been the one several notches lower and that would necessarily mean that even if there was a conviction, the penalty could not exceed a certain level.
"That argument was premised on showing that there was a gap. It was an argument that was dismissed, partly because there was a High Court judgment that the Subordinate Court felt that they were bound by and so we accepted it.”
He believes such details did not make the headlines as much because the public’s attention was focused on the “more sensational aspects” of the case.
I wonder if he ever faces a moral dilemma when defending those accused of harsh crimes.
“I am fortunate in being able to separate moral dilemma from professional responsibility quite well. The fact that I seldom taken on criminal cases probably makes that easier.
"As a lawyer, I present the facts as they are instructed to me. I make the best of those facts using legal authority and arguments, and it is for the court to assess if there has been wrongdoing. I don’t start off knowing or presuming there is wrongdoing, but if I am being asked by the client to take a false position or suppress material, then I will not carry on.”
I ask if he is at all concerned that his role as a defence lawyer - especially as Kong Hee’s lawyer - has affected his political standing among the electorate.
“I can’t discount it. I hope it will not but if it has, I just have to live with it, get on with it.
“Beyond doing what I do as a lawyer with all the right safeguards, checks and balances in place and as long as you don’t compromise on your ethics as a lawyer, what are those higher standards? Are you suggesting that a PAP MP who is also a lawyer should not act for criminals? Or are you suggesting a PAP MP who is also a doctor should not be treating a criminal? What are those standards? Why do we draw that line artificially?”
Mr Tong has been a lawyer since 1995 and his areas of practice include corporate and commercial disputes, and international arbitration. It’s something he will miss as he steps down from his position as Senior Counsel at law firm Allen & Gledhill to take on the role of Senior Minister of State.
“I’ve been used to being on my feet in court. I enjoy the cut and thrust of being in court and dealing with my clients. But at some stage there will always be some transition to be made and I’m looking forward to the challenge.”
image: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/ima...41cc96f6b11b29ea9c344acf0/By/edwin-tong-2.jpg
THE 2011 ELECTION: “THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF COMPLACENCY”
He was MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC till 2015, before he was elected MP for Marine Parade GRC.
His first election was in 2011. Many analysts described this as a watershed election.
The PAP garnered 81 of the 87 seats. However, its share of the valid votes cast dropped from the 66.6 per cent in the 2006 election to 60.1 per cent.
The opposition Workers’ Party retained its Hougang seat and captured the five-seat Aljunied GRC, the first time that an opposition party managed to win a GRC since the system was introduced in 1988.
I ask Mr Tong what it was like to be fielded for the first time in such an election.
“I was a complete newbie at that point. I worked the ground through grassroots work for a while but never in the hustle and bustle of the hustings. To be honest, in 2011, I had perhaps a rose-tinted view of what a PAP candidate would be facing. I went in it thinking this is the PAP team. We had done well over the years and it would be all things as per normal.
“It really took me a couple of days on the ground in the campaign to realise that it’s really not what I thought it was going to be and it was a lot harder. The pushback I got from a lot of the residents I went to see was a lot tougher than I expected. The tone of voice, general sentiment and body-language became noticeably hostile. That’s when I realised that actually the sentiment, the sense that Singaporeans were being marginalised in our own country, squeezed out of the MRT, literally and figuratively, were real.”
But why had he not sensed it while carrying out his grassroots work before the election? Had he not himself felt the growing unhappiness in a changing Singapore?
“I think perhaps my radar was not as attuned. I did realise that there were grouses, and there was unhappiness over certain policies but I didn't put it all together in the same way I did shortly into the hustings.”
Eventually, his team in Moulmein-Kallang garnered 58.56 per cent of the total votes cast.
“I would say there was quite a bit of complacency. The realisation didn't come home until 2011. We described it as watershed, but I think it’s a bit more than that.
"It’s also about the voting population growing up and realising that they do have a voice and they should exercise that voice. I think that’s how a properly functioning democracy should work. If something is not working out for the country and for the population, they have to speak up and the Government has to react. It needs to find the right responses.”
SOCIAL TRANSFERS - A POPULIST MOVE?
However, he cautions the Government against being populist in its efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters.
“When then-Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced social transfers – GST Vouchers, U-Save rebates, the Silver Support Scheme and other policies - I did feel that it was unprecedented and a slippery slope and it was too much of a reaction to what the ground sentiments were.
“I’ve seen the experiences of the Western countries where the more you give, the more one asks and I think that’s really the start of the erosion of the work ethic that Singaporeans have. Once we start giving, we can’t scale back. You look at our country. We have nothing but our people. If we erode the competency of the workforce and we introduce a policy that undermines the work ethic, I think that’s going to be a big problem for us as a country.”
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...-of-state-city-harvest-on-the-record-10483428
Forked tongues waxing lyrical!
