Remembering Gong Gong: A Tribute to My Maternal Grandfather, Fang Yong Sheak (方荣石)

I would like to share a belated reflection on the passing of my maternal grandfather, Fang Yong Sheak (chinese name: 方荣石) affectionately known to me and the rest of my extended family as Gong Gong. He left us on April 4th, 2020, during the height of the COVID Pandemic. I received the news while queueing outside a shop, masked up and running errands, when my dad called to inform me. It was a moment of disbelief and sorrow, made even more challenging by the lockdown in Malaysia and the Dorscon circuit breaker in Singapore at that time. Most of my maternal relatives, who reside in Malaysia, were unable to travel to Singapore to attend the funeral and pay their final respects.

Gong Gong was the second oldest among ten siblings, a man whose life was marked by hard work, practicality, and dedication. His career in education in Malaysia saw him rise from a teacher to a principal, and eventually to a director of Chinese schools in Johor. His commitment to education was so profound that three of his children followed his path and became teachers.

One of the things I admired most about Gong Gong was his incredible willpower. I remember when Grandma was diagnosed with cancer, he quit smoking cold turkey, a testament to his strength and love for her. Despite his practical nature and reluctance to discuss sentimental matters, his love for our family was undeniable. He promised Grandma who made him swear on her deathbed that he would convert to Christianity, and he honored that promise by regularly attending church with us and getting baptised.

Gong Gong had his unique quirks and tastes. He was known for his Mahathir-style olive green colored safari jackets, which he wore on almost all occasions. He loved nutritious food such as mix pig organs and was surprisingly independent, often traveling around Singapore to find his favorite food spots. Some of his favorites included the Nasi Briyani from the old Shami Banana Leaf at Northpoint and the fried seafood platter at Manhattan Fish Market Restaurant which he could eat all by himself in a single sitting.

He can be a stubborn man, refusing to use a wheelchair even when it became difficult for him to walk. His mobility gradually decreased after sustaining a fall. I remember supporting him by the hand to buy his favorite I Zhou Kan magazine, which he read for the synopsis of upcoming Taiwanese drama episodes. He was hooked on a particular Taiwanese drama called 爱, which ran for a thousand episodes on Singapore's local Chinese channel 8.

Gong Gong also had a keen interest in the stock market, meticulously monitoring prices on Teletext and later attempting to use an iPad for the same purpose after the Teletext service ended. He enjoyed Chinese oldies, especially songs by Bai Xuan, and took great pleasure in our yearly tradition of commemorating Mama’s passing and celebrating his birthday. These gatherings were always filled with visits to the cemetery and dining together at a Chinese restaurant.

One fascinating tidbit about Gong Gong is his cameo appearance in the well-known writer Anthony Burgess’s novel "Time for a Tiger" He was described as a tall and thin Chinese boy who corrected another character about the cost of transport of airplane vs train. Incidentally, Anthony Burgess was a teacher at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar in 1954. It may very well be possible that he did cross path with my grandfather who was also a teacher back then and used his name as a cameo in that early novel of his.

Gong Gong raised his five children, including my mother, with great care, ensuring they all received an education abroad. His life was a testament to hard work, love, and dedication. Despite his fear of airplanes, which prevented him from accepting a scholarship to England, he found his path in education and made a significant impact on those around him.

Though it has been four years since his passing, we continue to celebrate his life and the legacy he leaves behind. Gong Gong, Fang Yong Sheak, may you rest in the everlasting peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, reunited with Grandma, whom you loved so dearly. We love you and will carry your memory in our hearts always.

Rest in peace, Gong Gong. You will be deeply missed but never forgotten.

Examining Suitable Courses of Action for Law Enforcement Officers Claiming Damages from Offenders Under Tort Law

Introduction

The role of law enforcement officers, including traffic officers, inherently involves risk, particularly when they engage in pursuits of offenders attempting to evade arrest. These situations can place officers in precarious and life-threatening conditions. A recent case highlighted this issue where a LTA (Land Transport Authority) traffic officer tragically lost his life while pursuing an offender who dangerously crossed multiple lanes and a divider onto an expressway. This raises the question: under existing tort law, is there a suitable course of action for police officers or traffic officers to claim damages or compensation from offenders whose actions during evasion place the officers' lives in jeopardy?

Existing Framework: Negligence and Its Limitations

Under the pre-existing tort law, a claim for negligence requires the plaintiff to prove several elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In the context of an offender evading arrest, it seems contrived to argue that the offender owes a duty of care to the pursuing officer. Traditional negligence principles may appear inadequate for providing a mechanism for compensation in these circumstances. Proving that an offender had a duty to act reasonably towards a law enforcement officer, who is inherently involved in dangerous activities by virtue of their job, can be legally challenging and seems somewhat artificial.

The necessity of establishing a duty of care implies that the offender should consider that their actions might harm the pursuing officer. However, the very nature of evasion often involves reckless disregard for others' safety, complicating the application of negligence principles. Furthermore, causation requires a clear, direct link between the offender’s actions and the officer's injury, which may be difficult to substantiate due to the difficulty in drawing a direct causative link between the offender's action of evasion with the inherent risks involved in police pursuits.

Intentional Torts and Reckless Conduct

Another potential avenue could be the pursuit of intentional tort claims, such as assault or battery, if it can be demonstrated that the offender deliberately endangered the officer. However, proving intent in these cases is often more challenging than proving negligence. Reckless conduct, where the offender's actions show a blatant disregard for safety, could provide a middle ground, but it still demands a high standard of proof that might be impractical under the circumstances.

Need for Legal Evolution: A Specialized Tort for Law Enforcement

Given these challenges, it might be worth considering the development of a specialized statutory tort that addresses the unique risks faced by law enforcement officers during pursuits or in the course of duty. Such a tort could streamline the process of claiming compensation by recognizing the inherent duty offenders have to avoid endangering officers during evasion attempts. This new category of tort could be akin to strict liability, where proving the offender's intent or negligence is less burdensome.

This specialized tort could include the following elements:

1. Duty of Safety During Evasion: Establishing that offenders owe a heightened duty of care to law enforcement officers during evasion.
2. Presumption of Risk: Recognizing the inherent risks officers face, allowing for a presumption that any egregious attempt to evade arrest inherently breaches this duty.
3. Simplified Causation: Allowing causation to be inferred from the nature of the evasion, particularly when it involves reckless or dangerous maneuvers.

Conclusion

The tragic loss of a traffic officer during the pursuit of an offender underscores the possible inadequacies of the current tort law framework in addressing these unique situations. While negligence and intentional torts offer some avenues for claims, they require complex and often impractical proofs of duty and causation. The development of a specialized tort tailored to the needs of law enforcement officers could provide a more suitable and just mechanism for compensation, recognizing the inherent dangers these officers face in their line of duty. This evolution in tort law would ensure that offenders are held accountable for the risks they impose on pursuing officers, providing a clearer and fairer pathway for restitution.

Navigating Sovereignty: Exploring Land Legitimacy in Singapore and Israel

One common accusation leveled against Israel regarding its legitimacy stems from the contention that the British lacked the authority to partition and allocate land to establish the State of Israel. Critics argue that the British, acting as administrators under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, did not possess the rightful sovereignty to unilaterally determine the fate of the territory. The accusation asserts that the British mandate was an administrative arrangement, and therefore, the British did not have the legal or moral authority to allocate land to Israel. But how about in the case of Singapore? Could similar doubts be raised regarding the legitimacy of British actions in transferring sovereignty over the territory?

The transfer of land and the legitimacy of such transfers have significant historical, legal, and political implications. This essay aims to analyze and compare whether there is a good root of title in the transfer of land from Malay rulers to the British and then to Singaporeans with the transfer of land that subsequently became Israel following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and British Mandate.

A "good root of title" refers to a legitimate and legally recognized basis for ownership or transfer of land. It establishes the rightful ownership or authority over a particular piece of land, providing a clear and unambiguous chain of ownership or transfer. In essence, it ensures that the current owner or possessor of the land can trace their title back to a lawful source or origin. A good root of title is crucial in real estate and property law to prevent disputes over ownership and to establish the validity of transactions involving land. It typically involves documentation such as deeds, titles, or other legal instruments that demonstrate the lawful acquisition or transfer of property rights

Israel: From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate to Israeli Statehood

1. End of Ottoman Rule:

        - Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the land that would become Israel was left without a clear sovereign authority.

2. British Mandate:

    - In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain the Mandate for Palestine, giving them administrative control but not ownership. The mandate aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people while protecting the rights of existing Arab inhabitants.

    - Britain's authority came from an international mandate, not from ownership, complicating the legitimacy of any land transfers they facilitated.

3. Partition and Conflict:

     - In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition plan to create separate Jewish and Arab states. The plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to conflict.

    - The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 followed the end of the British Mandate and a war of independence. The resulting state was recognized by many international actors, though the legitimacy of the initial transfer remained contested.

Singapore: From Malay Rulers to the British to Singaporeans

1. Initial British Acquisition:

        - In 1819, Sir Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company negotiated with local Malay leaders to establish a trading post in Singapore.

    - The agreement was made with Temenggong Abdul Rahman and Sultan Hussein Shah, who was recognized by the British as the Sultan of Johor, though his legitimacy was contested.

2. Treaties and Legitimacy:

        - The Treaty of 1819 and subsequent treaties in 1824 solidified British control over Singapore. However, Sultan Hussein Shah's legitimacy was questionable since the recognized ruler by the Dutch who was the the de facto ruler was the younger brother Sultan Abdul Rahman.

    - This situation can be likened to the principle of "nemo dat quod non habet" (no one gives what they do not have), raising doubts about the legitimacy of the British claim.

3. Post-Colonial Transfer:

     - After World War II, Singapore gained self-governance in 1959. It became part of the Federation of Malaya in 1963, alongside Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak, forming the new nation of Malaysia. Yet, the merger proved to be short-lived, as tensions between the Malaysian federal government and the PAP-led Singaporean government escalated. Fundamental ideological differences, particularly over issues of race and governance, strained the relationship between Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia on August 9, 1965, just two years after joining the federation. This gave rise to an independent and sovereign Singapore.

Comparative Analysis

1. Source of Authority to transfer land rights and/or ownership:

        - In the case of Singapore, the British negotiated treaties with local rulers, though the legitimacy of those rulers was contested. 

    - In the case of Israel/Palestine, the British acted not as sovereign owners but as administrators with varying degrees of legitimacy. 

1. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet" Principle:

        - In the case of Singapore. the principle "nemo dat quod non habet" could potentially apply. In Singapore, the British negotiated with rulers who may not have had legitimate authority. 

    - In Israel/Palestine, the British possibly administered land without owning it, raising questions about their right to facilitate land transfers.

Conclusion

The legitimacy of land transfers in both Singapore and Israel involves complex historical and legal contexts. In Singapore, despite initial legitimacy issues, a clear transition to independence solidified the root of title. In Israel, the contested nature of British authority and the resulting conflict led to ongoing debates about the legitimacy of the land's transfer. Both cases highlight the intricate interplay of local authority, colonial administration, and international law in determining the root of title and the legitimacy of statehood.

An approach akin to the concept of indefeasible title in the Torrens System, such as UN recognition of statehood of member states, may present a more desirable alternative to solely relying on the traditional notion of a 'good root of title.' While the latter emphasizes a strict legalistic framework focused on historical documentation and title deeds, the former prioritizes international recognition and legitimacy, which can contribute to greater stability and consensus in resolving disputes over land ownership and statehood.

Whichever system is adopted, there will always be parties who benefit from it and others who feel disadvantaged. Those who stand to gain from a particular system are likely to support it, while those who stand to lose may feel aggrieved or discontented. This presents the inherent challenge of finding a universally acceptable approach to resolving land ownership and statehood disputes.

Analyzing Historical Parallels: Are Singaporeans More like Israelis or Palestinians?

Abstract

As a Singaporean, I often think about our country's mix of cultures and backgrounds. One intriguing question that has crossed my mind is whether the circumstances of Singaporeans are more analogous to the Israelis or the Palestinians. This inquiry is not just an academic exercise but a meaningful exploration that asks us to place ourselves in the shoes of either party. By doing so, we may draw greater empathy and understanding, recognizing that the criticisms we levy against others might sometimes reflect our own historical and social realities.

In light of recent events, such as the ongoing Israel war in Gaza following the Oct 7 terror attack by Hamas that resulted in the loss of over 1000 Israeli civilians, the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has once again captured global attention. This essay seeks to explore parallels between this conflict and the ethnic dynamics within Singapore, particularly regarding the Singaporean-Chinese and their relationship with the land.

Importance of This Inquiry

One important aspect of this inquiry is that it encourages us to place ourselves in the shoes of either party. It is often easy to judge a group without realizing that we might be in a similar position. For example, many Americans criticize or condemn Israelis as foreign settlers and occupiers without recognizing the irony of this position. Many Americans, especially those who are not native American Indians are in a similar position concerning their status in the land of America, as they are not the indigenous people.

This irony is often lost on them. For Singaporeans, especially those who are Chinese or Indian, this realization is crucial. For example, the same criticism or accusation levied against Israelis, such as them being foreign occupier settler colonialists, can potentially boomerang and be used against us. It is important to understand what our situation is when it comes to our own geopolitical circumstances when assessing others.

Introduction

In this essay, I will delve into the question of whether Singaporeans are more analogous to Israelis or Palestinians by examining their historical, cultural, and identity perspectives. First, I will explore the similarities and differences between the Singaporean and Israelis, focusing on historical connections, migration patterns, and societal impact. Then, I will shift the focus to the analogy between Singaporean and Palestinians, considering their historical presence, colonial legacies, and struggles for statehood.

Singaporeans as Israelis

To consider the Singaporean as analogous to Israelis, we can look at several aspects of historical and demographic shifts, as well as the dynamics of power and dominance.

Migration and Settlement

The Jewish people have ancient historical ties to the land of Israel, which dates back over 3,000 years. Ancient Jewish kingdoms existed in the region, and it is a central part of Jewish religious and cultural identity. Although many Jews were dispersed throughout the world over centuries (the Diaspora), they maintained religious and cultural ties to the land. The modern return, particularly in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, was seen by many Jews as a return to their ancestral homeland.

Similarly, the Chinese and Indian population in Singapore largely migrated during the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly under British colonial rule. The Chinese became the majority ethnic group, profoundly influencing Singapore’s social, economic, and cultural landscape. Their significant contribution to the development of Singapore echoes the transformative impact of Jewish migration on the land of Israel.

Dominance and Influence

Israel today is a powerful state with a robust economy and military. The Jewish population, having established political dominance, exerts considerable influence over the region. Analogously, the Singaporean-Chinese are the majority group in Singapore, holding significant economic and political power. Their dominance in various spheres of life in Singapore mirrors the Israeli influence in their region.

Historical Displacement

Jewish migration to Palestine led to the displacement of many Palestinians, similar to how the arrival of the Chinese in Singapore altered the demographic and socio-economic landscape. While the context of displacement differs, the analogy holds in terms of the transformative impact on the existing population and the resultant demographic dominance.

Differential factors of analogy with Israeli

Ancient Ties vs. Recent Migration:

The Jews’ connection to Israel spans thousands of years, with ancient kingdoms and religious significance. In contrast, the Chinese migration to Singapore is more recent, lacking the same ancient historical ties.

Singaporeans as Palestinians

On the other hand, considering the Singaporean as analogous to Palestinians brings a different perspective.

Long-Term Presence and Contribution

The Palestinians have lived in the region continuously for many centuries, contributing to its culture and society. Their continuous presence predates significant Jewish migration in the modern era. Similarly, the Chinese community has been a major part of Singapore’s fabric for over a century, significantly contributing to its development and prosperity. This long-term presence and deep-rooted contribution can be seen as a parallel to the Palestinian experience.

Majority Demographics Post-Colonial Rule/Exile:

After the exile of the Jews from ancient Palestine, the demographics shifted, making Palestinian Arabs the majority. Similarly, in Singapore, historical and colonial circumstances led to significant migration, transforming the Chinese community into the majority. Prior to these changes, the Malay population was the majority in the region, just like how the Jews were the majority in the land before Roman exile in 70 CE following the destruction of the Second Temple.

Differential Factors of analogy with Palestinian

However, there are also significant differences between the experiences of Singaporeans and Palestinians:

Competing Claims:

Unlike Singapore, which did not face significant competing claims to its territory post-colonial rule, Palestine encountered competing claims from Jewish communities seeking to establish a Jewish state in the region. This movement, known as Zionism, gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in response to the widespread persecution of Jews in Europe, advocating for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

It is conceivable that if the Malay people or Malaysia had staked a claim to the territory of Singapore following British colonial rule, it would have introduced a significant and potentially contentious dimension to Singapore's history and development.

International Dynamics:

The geopolitical context surrounding Singapore's independence differed from that of Palestine, with Singapore benefiting from favorable international support and recognition, while Palestine faced challenges, including regional conflicts and geopolitical rivalries.

Continuous Presence:

Palestinians have lived continuously in the region for over a millennium, akin to the Orang Laut and Malays in Singapore. The Chinese, while having a long-term presence in Singapore, do not have the same level of historical continuity with pre-colonial times.

Conclusion on Indigeneity

By the definition of indigenous, which applies to groups with a historical continuity that predates colonial or settler societies, the Orang Laut and Malays are the indigenous people of Singapore. The Singaporean-Chinese, while significant settlers who have contributed immensely to the development and identity of modern Singapore, do not fit the strict definition of being indigenous.

Conclusion

Perhaps the outcome of my exercise in comparing and analyzing Singapore as an analogy with Israel and Palestine is this: it is possible to see Singapore through the lens and the eyes of both the Israeli and the Palestinian.

In the eyes of the Israelis, we can see ourselves as similar in the sense that we were brought to the land by the British in the 19th and 20th centuries, and even though there was an existing population that considers itself indigenous, we still believe or feel that we have a rightful place to exist within this society.

Conversely, we can also see ourselves through the eyes of the Palestinians. Despite having been in the land for quite some time and despite another group considering itself as having ancestral indigeneity, we believe that we, too, have a right to exist.

The moral of this analysis is that we should not be too quick to criticize or dismiss either party's right or sentiment to exist. It's possible to see ourselves in the shoes of either. If we criticize one or the other, we might be acting hypocritically and potentially undermining our own right to exist as a people and a nation.

Therefore, it's crucial to approach such conflicts with empathy and understanding, recognizing the complexities and nuances involved. This exercise reminds us to be cautious in our judgments and to respect the multifaceted nature of national identity and existence.