the nclave

a little enclave for me in the vast ocean of the web. here's hoping i'll look back on all these someday, and be glad for it.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Singapore

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Most aghast (Part 2)

Yes, I am so aghast (see previous post below) that I have sent the email below to the Traffic Police. (No, I am not very free - it's just that I have finished my work and am waiting for counterparties/clients to revert.)

===================

"Dear Sirs

I refer to the road traffic incident reported in The New Paper on 29 April 2008. A copy of the relevant article is attached for your reference.

It was reported in the article that the driver had been penalised with only a fine of S$200 and 9 demerit points. Based on the penalties described, I have inferred that he was charged with an offence under Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276) ("RTA"), and that the offence had been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA, as permitted under Rule 2(a) of the Road Traffic (Composition of Offences) Rules (Cap. 276, Section 135(2)) ("Rule 2(a)").

I have witnessed on numerous occasions similar incidents where a motorist jams his brakes before an ERP gantry, presumably to insert his cashcard. On each occasion, the vehicles behind the errant driver have had to similarly jam their brakes, narrowly avoiding an accident in each case. In these cases, accidents were avoided not because the errant drivers' actions were not dangerous enough, but only by reason of the alertness of the drivers behind them.

Given the aggravating factors in the reported case, where an innocent woman had sustained serious injuries (as defined in Section 47D of the RTA) by reason of the dangerous manner in which Mr Lim had driven his vehicle, a penalty of S$200 fine and 9 demerit points is merely a slap on the wrist, which may have no lasting consequence on Mr Lim, or any impact at all.

For public policy reasons, such as the deterrence of such dangerous behaviour, it is important for the Traffic Police to send a strong signal to the public that stopping suddenly before an ERP gantry (or anywhere along an expressway for no good reason) cannot be tolerated on our roads. This is especially when the LTA had specially reduced the penalty for passing through an ERP gantry without a valid cashcard inserted to a mere S$10 administration fee (which is reduced further to S$8 if paid electronically).

While the prosecutorial discretion lies entirely in the hands of the Traffic Police and the AGC, it is my respectful opinion that an injustice has been done in this case, and that subsequent offenders who cause accidents by jamming their brakes before an ERP gantry should be dealt with more severely.

In particular, using Mr Lim as an example, he should have been charged under Section 64(1) of the RTA, for driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road. Not only does this carry a higher penalty than Section 65 of the RTA, it is also not compoundable under Section 135 of the RTA (see Rule 2(a)). In addition, the court would have had discretion to disqualify Mr Lim from driving, under Section 42(1) of the RTA. A mere 9 demerit points (for Section 65) is unlikely to have a big impact on Mr Lim, if at all.

At the very least, the charge under Section 65 should not have been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA (composition is discretionary, not mandatory).

With the light penalty imposed on Mr Lim and his obvious lack of remorse (which is also an aggravating factor), it is likely that he would not hesitate to repeat the offence if he happens to forget his cashcard again. The light penalty is also an unfortunate signal to Miss Tiong and her family that her injuries were not sufficient to constitute an aggravating factor.

I hope that in light of the above feedback, the Traffic Police may exercise its prosecutorial discretion to reflect the gravity of the consequences and other aggravating factors in subsequent cases.

Best regards"

Labels: , ,

Most aghast

Spotted in yesterday's New Paper:

"'It's Not My Fault'

29 April 2008

HE stopped his car abruptly on the fast lane of a busy highway to insert his CashCard.

And it caused an accident that left a woman seriously injured.

But to Mr Lim Huang Khim, 45, it was the 'natural thing' to do. He does not think he did anything wrong.

This, despite being fined for his inconsiderate driving that caused a motorcyclist to slam into the car behind him - which had braked in time to avoid hitting Mr Lim's car.

This, despite a judge ruling in a civil suit that Mr Lim was 50 per cent liable for the accident.

The motorcyclist, Miss Tiong Zhen Cheng, 33, was flung more than 20m and landed beside Mr Lim's car.

The sales executive was warded in the intensive care unit and spent about a week in hospital. She still suffers pain and some memory loss.

Miss Tiong ended up being sued by the driver of the second car, Mr Lye Chiew Meng, for the damage to his Toyota.

His rear windscreen was shattered and the repair bill came to $7,000.

But her insurance company felt Mr Lim should also be liable and he was named as the third party in the civil suit.

SMILED MANY TIMES IN COURT

Earlier this month, Mr Lim, who works as a driver, insisted he was not to blame and smiled several times as he recounted the accident on the stand.

He was chided by District Judge Lim Wee Meng for his cavalier attitude.

Judge Lim said: 'I don't think it's funny. Someone was seriously injured and I don't think it's funny at all.'

The accident happened around 7.50pm on 29 Nov 2006 on the Central Expressway, just before the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry near the Braddell exit.

Mr Lim was driving a rented silver Mitsubishi car and was travelling on the extreme right lane on his way home with his wife and four children.

When he saw that the gantry was activated, he switched on the car's hazard lights and stopped to slot in his CashCard.

Mr Lye, a finance manager, who was behind him, managed to stop in time. But Miss Tiong's 400cc Honda motorbike crashed into Mr Lye's car.

When cross-examined by Miss Tiong's lawyer, Mr Lim maintained that he was not at fault.

Her lawyer, Mr William Chai, asked: 'A car was damaged, a person was severely and mentally injured, are you saying you are not responsible? Not even 1 per cent?'

Mr Lim replied: 'I'm saying that I'm totally not to be blamed.'

He told the court that he had not inserted his CashCard into the in-vehicle unit (IU) earlier because he did not know that the ERP gantry was activated at that time.

When asked if seeing the activated gantry was a big surprise, Mr Lim said he had seen it from afar and was trying to insert the CashCard in time.

He also told the court that he did not see Miss Tiong's bike behind Mr Lye's car.

He admitted that following the accident, he had purposely left out in his police report the reason for stopping his car as he knew that it was an offence.

Mr Lim, who has been driving for 24 years, was fined $200 by the Traffic Police for inconsiderate driving and given nine demerit points.

But in his affidavit tendered to the court, he said: 'I decided to pay the $200 out of convenience even though I do not believe that I should be responsible for the accident.

'I did not want the trouble to engage a lawyer to contest the claim because this would be time-consuming and the legal fees would definitely exceed $200.'

In contrast, Mr Lye was apologetic about what happened to Miss Tiong. His lawyer, Miss Bonnie Kwok, told the court: 'My client would like to extend his sympathies to Miss Tiong.'

She also said that while Mr Lye could clearly see the traffic conditions in front of him, Miss Tiong could not.

Said Miss Kwok: 'It's not a situation whereby the vehicles were approaching a traffic light junction, so there's no reason for Miss Tiong to anticipate a sudden stopping.

'Mr Lim had created a dangerous situation. I found it rather distasteful that Mr Lim's demeanour in court showed that he couldn't be bothered that Miss Tiong had suffered severe injuries and trauma.'

Before giving his verdict, the judge pointed out that Mr Lim could have gone through the ERP gantry and paid an administrative fee of $10 for not having a CashCard.

LIABLE FOR DAMAGE

He ruled that Mr Lim and Miss Tiong were each 50 per cent liable for the damage caused to Mr Lye's car.

When contacted by The New Paper, Mr Lim insisted that he was not in the wrong.

He said in Mandarin: 'Are you a driver? Have you driven a car before?

'If you have, you should know that it's a driver's natural reaction (when you see an activated gantry).

'You can't say it's right or wrong because there's no right or wrong in such situations. I did switch on the hazard lights to warn the vehicles behind me.'

Mr Lim said that he felt sorry for the injured Miss Tiong, though he did not speak to her in court.

'She might think that I have an ulterior motive if I went up to her and apologised,' he said.

Just two days before the accident involving Miss Tiong, Mr Lim said he was involved in a similar accident along the East Coast Parkway.

Mr Lim told The New Paper that the car in front of his had slowed down suddenly.

'So I also braked and stopped my car to take a closer look at what the driver was up to and to take down his licence plate number,' he said.

'But the car behind me couldn't stop in time and ended up crashing into the rear of my car.'

Mr Lim said the first car then drove off. His car, a Honda Stream, ended up at the workshop for five days.

That was why he was driving a rented car, which did not have a CashCard in the IU.

Mr Lim added: 'If I was driving my car, this wouldn't have happened because I always have the CashCard inside the IU.'


I am MOST aghast. If I weren’t bound by laws and morality, I would seek out Mr Lim and beat the daylights out of him. And then do it again. Especially given that he appears to have no sense of morality whatsoever.

What is up with stopping on the extreme right lane of the expressway just to insert a cashcard?? It is dangerous, inconsiderate and very illegal. In fact, I am shocked he got away with a 200-dollar fine and 9 demerit points. It doesn’t even result in a suspension, which means he can continue terrorising other motorists with his cavalier attitude towards safety! Shall go do some research and lodged a complaint with the Traffic Police if there are grounds for a more severe penalty.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 17, 2008

phew!!

Spotted in ST Online today:

"Nasa says German student got it wrong

WASHINGTON - IT WAS an incredible tale of a German schoolboy spotting a miscalculation by the US space agency, proving the chances of an asteroid hitting the Earth were higher than initially believed.

But the amazing story of the whizzkid versus the space bureaucracy turned out to be wrong, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) said on Wednesday.

The agency, sounding a bit like a weary math teacher, said its figures are correct when it comes to the asteroid Apophis, not the boy's.

'We stand by our numbers,' said Nasa spokesman Dwayne Brown.

The agency that oversees space shuttle missions and unmanned space probes issued a statement after the German newspaper Potsdamer Neuerster Nachrichten reported on Tuesday that student Nico Marquardt had calculated there was a 1 in 450 chance that the Apophis asteroid will collide with Earth.

He argued in his project for a regional science competition that scientists at Nasa had got it wrong when they estimated the chances of a collision at only 1 in 45,000.

But experts at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California had no doubts about their calculations, Mr Brown said.

The Near-Earth Object Program Office 'has not changed its current estimates for the very low probability (1 in 45,000) of an Earth impact by the asteroid Apophis in 2036', Mr Brown said in a statement.

And the newspaper's account was also inaccurate when it described Nasa telling the European Space Agency that the German student's calculations were correct, Mr Brown said.

'Contrary to recent press reports, Nasa offices involved in near-Earth object research were not contacted and have had no correspondence with a young German student, who claims the Apophis impact probability is far higher than the current estimate,' the statement said.

The student's estimates were reportedly based on the asteroid hitting a satellite in 2029.

'However, the asteroid will not pass near the main belt of geosynchronous satellites in 2029, and the chance of a collision with a satellite is exceedingly remote,' it said.
While the German newspaper article had spread across the Internet, NASA said the probability of Apophis colliding with Earth remained at 1 in 45,000. - AFP"


Am most relieved. Would be shitting bricks if the chances were really 1 in 450!! (but then again, conspiracy theorists would say that NASA is just trying to cover up...hmmm.....)

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

i am endangered

Spotted in Today, 7 April 2008:
 
"Lawyers In S'pore: Time for Market Forces to Decide

Conrad Raj
Editor-at-large
conrad@mediacorp.com.sg

It is not that difficult to put a finger on why Singapore has suddenly found itself in a situation where lawyers have become an endangered species.

It goes back to decisions made some 20 years ago when the Government took three controversial decisions: Reducing the National University of Singapore's intake of law students, disallowing lawyers with third-class honours from being admitted to the Bar and restricting entry only to those who graduated with good grades from some overseas universities.

This decision to arbitrarily turn off the tap was grounded in some sound reasons, such as the desire to maintain the quality of the profession.

But it did not anticipate a new world where financial services and telecommunications becoming sunrise industries with lawyers having a big role to play to make them economic winners.

A Government-appointed committee admitted as much in a report several years ago, which stated: "For Singapore to become a premier financial centre and a regional telecommunications hub, there is a need to increase the pool of lawyers to provide the necessary legal support services."

It said Singapore needs another 250 lawyers a year up until 2010, compared to the 150 or so now called to the bar annually. The aim is to have between 99 and 115 lawyers per 100,000 people. This means a target of between 4,837 and 5,658 lawyers by 2010, against the present total of about 3,500 practising lawyers.

Another unfortunate and unexpected event struck. A tough and no-nonsense approach by the courts to upgrade the profession led some to retire early and many to look for jobs in non-law firms where lawyers' skills were urgently needed.

The Government reacted by relaxing the rules somewhat to admit graduates from certain universities in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, and raise the limit on foreign law degree-holders from 50 to 70 a year.

But only the top 30 per cent from the scheduled universities in Australia, New Zealand and the US were recognised for admission to the Singapore Bar.

Just last month, the rules were further eased so that Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents now need to show that they have spent two years doing relevant legal work or were solicitors in England, Wales or Hong Kong to practise law here. The previous relevant legal work requirement was three years.

This is in addition to the other requirements that all those intending to be called to the Singapore Bar have to meet — like passing the Diploma in Singapore Law Course, Postgraduate Law Course and serving pupillage at a local law firm.

This amended rule is for those who have a second-class lower honours from a scheduled British university, or have been ranked in the top 70 per cent in terms of academic performance of the total number of graduates in his or her batch from a recognised university in Australia, New Zealand or the US.

Even these reactive measures are still grounded in a mindset of a "softly-softly" approach which raises some questions: Why do we need to impose time limits on foreign graduates when they are already being creamed from only scheduled universities?

Why are those with third-class honours still being barred from practising when the bench has had prominent judges and the Bar has seen some prominent lawyers with such degrees?

Haven't we also got competent practising lawyers here who obtained their degrees from less-recognised foreign universities?

What the profession needs is a maverick approach by the Government to solving its problems. And that approach can only come when law firms are allowed to decide the competence of the lawyers they hire, provided they meet the necessary qualifications of all scheduled universities, be they from Singapore or overseas.

The market is often the most efficient arbiter of needs, and should there be an oversupply, people will stop studying law or any other discipline where there are no jobs available and switch to areas where there is a shortage and need.

Let market forces decide the supply of and demand for lawyers, or for that matter any job.
"
 
 
The writer seems to have a strange inclination towards the school of thought that the quality of lawyers does not matter.
 
"This decision to arbitrarily turn off the tap was grounded in some sound reasons, such as the desire to maintain the quality of the profession.  But it did not anticipate a new world where financial services and telecommunications becoming sunrise industries with lawyers having a big role to play to make them economic winners." -- erm, so financial services and telecommunications do not require quality lawyers?
 
"Another unfortunate and unexpected event struck. A tough and no-nonsense approach by the courts to upgrade the profession led some to retire early and many to look for jobs in non-law firms where lawyers' skills were urgently needed." -- why is it unfortunate for the profession to be upgraded?  Would he rather have incompetent lawyers in court, hindering rather than facilitating the course of justice?
 
"Why are those with third-class honours still being barred from practising when the bench has had prominent judges and the Bar has seen some prominent lawyers with such degrees?  Haven't we also got competent practising lawyers here who obtained their degrees from less-recognised foreign universities?" -- I'm not saying he is wrong, but without substantiation or examples, this is but a bare assertion.
 
I certainly agree that we are facing a shortage of lawyers, but the solution is not to relax the standards.  Why compromise on the quality of lawyers?  The writer has probably never experienced the pain of dealing with incompetent lawyers.  No, the key solution is to reduce the attrition rate.  While I fully agree that measures should be taken to increase the new blood coming into the profession (while maintaining the high standards of qualification), any amount of new lawyers we attract is useless if the existing lawyers are dropping like flies.
 
But I'm too lazy to go into a discourse on curbing the attrition rate now, so that will have to be another argument for another time...

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

O-M-G

Just learnt some information which is most exciting.  It is thrilling, risky and uncertain, but damn it sounds like fun.  My only regret is that my current position does not allow me to participate in this, for now.  But it sure does open up a whole new possibility for the future, and I can only hope that it might happen one day.  Till then, I'm just looking on with envy....

Labels:

does it work?

Well, if you are reading this post, then it does work!  Decided to try out the "posting by email" function, so I can get past the excuse of being unable to access blogger from my office.
 
Anyway, turns out that they've found someone to take over my biggest file, so I might contemplate moving to my new team wef 21 April instead of 28 April...let's see how it goes...

Labels: ,

credit and security??!?!

It somehow seems ironic that one day the mumblings of Prof P. Ellinger might possibly come in useful in my career, given that I was usually unable to decipher the ongoings of the Credit & Security module taken in my 4th (?) year in NUS...

But nonetheless, the deed is done, and I will officially be leaving the convoluted world of capital markets into the (hopefully) brighter sunshine of banking. No, not joining a bank, but rather the banking team in FSD. Am presently trying to ensure that everything is handed over smoothly to fellow associates who have the luck of the draw to be taking over my current files, and should be doing so for the next couple of weeks before I take on the new challenges of facility agreements and security documents.

Anyway, boring stuff aside, I was asked to join the banking team lunch today, and I gladly accepted. Since I'm probably gonna be seeking plenty of precedents from my future teammates, I might as well get started on building relationships! But seriously though, they seem to be a pretty nice bunch of people - light-hearted and ready for humour, which many of you will know is an important trait that I value.

Lunch was supposed to be at L'Angelus at Club Street, but due to the heavy rain, we were compelled to switch venue to the Rang Mahal at Pan Pacific. I thought I'd never been there before, until I arrived and realised I did do lunch there before, though I can't remember exactly who was there. Probably some random monthly lunch back at my old firm. Food was not bad, company was great, so am looking forward to embarking on the new journey ahead.

Watch this space for updates! (yea, yea...i know that's what i said in my last post yonks ago too...)

Labels: , , ,