The following news appeared in Singapore's newspaper "The New Paper On Sunday"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I ONLY WANT ENOUGH FOR MY SON
Govt regrets error, but says $3m demand not acceptable
By Tay Shi'an ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )


July 02, 2007


FROM $150,000 to $3 million.

That's the big jump in compensation and damages that Madam Ho Gee Lin, 52, is demanding after her son, Dickson Tan Yong Wen, was given three extra strokes of the cane.

The mother and son raised the amount after hiring lawyer Joseph Chen Kok Siang to fight their case.

Tan, 20, was given eight strokes of the cane in prison instead of the five he was sentenced to, after a court clerk wrongly recorded the sentence on a document.

He had been sentenced to nine months' jail and five strokes of the cane for abetting an illegal moneylender to harass a debtor.

In a joint statement yesterday, the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs said that the government regrets the error, and is ready and willing to settle the matter.

However, they said the $3m sum could not be accepted.

They also said that Tan had not told prison officers about the mistake, as he had claimed, and had verified the number of strokes on some documents. (See report on facing page).

But, when contacted by The New Paper on Sunday, Madam Ho stood by her version that her son and family had tried to notify the authorities of the error through various channels.

She also said that the family would actually settle for $300,000.

She said in Mandarin: 'If tomorrow, the Government calls me and offers $300,000, I will accept.


'If they offer less, but it's a reasonable amount, we can consider it.'

So why ask for $3m?

That's only if the Government does not offer a settlement that the family is willing to accept and the case goes to court, said Mr Chen.

The $3m demand would then include punitive damages, over and above the compensation.

Madam Ho claimed that if they were to be awarded the $3m, they would donate $2.7m to charity.

'The $300,000 is all I really want to take care of my son,' she said.

Madam Ho, who is also a claimant in the case, added that she suffered fear and could not sleep due to her son's ordeal.

She said her son had found out about the mistake on the day he entered prison, and had told his family about it.

The family claims that despite numerous attempts by both Tan and his family to correct the mistake, Tan still received eight strokes on 29 Mar, two weeks after he entered prison.

His family only found out two weeks after he was caned, during their next visit.

Said Madam Ho: 'When I first found out the mistake, I was so scared, I couldn't sleep.

'For two weeks, we didn't know who to look for, we hoped the caning would be postponed or the mistake corrected, but we weren't told the outcome. By the time we knew, he had already been caned.'

Madam Ho said that before she engaged a lawyer, she had actually written to the Prisons Department and Admiralty West Prison, where her son was caned, to ask for $150,000 compensation.

She met a lawyer from the Attorney-General's Chambers on 4 Jun, but they offered a lower amount, which she did not accept.

It was at this time that she consulted a lawyer.

Then, the family discovered 'aggravating factors' and increased their compensation demand to $300,000.

The case was referred for mediation - but the family did not go forward with it.

Mr Chen said it was because they were told they had to pay $2,000 in mediation fees, which the family could not afford.

Since it looked as though the case was heading to court, the family, on MrChen's advice, increased the sum to $3m.

Mr Chen said: 'My advice to them was based on cases in other countries. If we go to court, we ask for $3m.'

The lawyer added that Tan is willing to undertake a lie-detecter test over his claims that he had told prison officers of the mistake on the first day he entered prison.

Madam Ho claimed her son had put his thumb print on the documents because the same officers he had complained to were there during the caning.

'He was worried if he raised the matter again with them, he'd be punished further. He also thought that if they wanted to check, they would have done so two weeks earlier.'

Tan was released from prison on 17May and is serving out the rest of his sentence on home detention until August.

Madam Ho said he was treated for trauma and depression by a psychiatrist and was warded at Adam Road Hospital for four days after his release


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following are my comments about this canning mistake case in Singapore:

As a parent, I feel for Madam Ho Gee Lin's pain. Her son, Dickson Tan Yong Wen, was given three extra strokes of the cane. Dickson had been sentenced to nine months jail and five strokes of the cane for abetting an illegal moneylender to harass a debtor.

Dickson had committed a crime and his sentencing was a punishment for his crime. What he did was wrong--no doubt about it. However, the court clerk's mistake, which ended up with Dickson getting the extra strokes, was also wrong. No one deserves such treatment, not even convicts let alone an ex-con.

One more stroke is already one too many, and one more mistake like this in our legal history is also one too many. Do not forget we are known to have one of the world's best legal and home security systems. Remember it took quite a bit of political jostling for the infamous Michael Fay to have his canning reduced by two strokes. This canning punishment is serious business and the authorities should therefore take canning mistakes seriously too. Do you know how painful is one stroke? Canning is no walk-in-the-park. Criminals had been known to be willing to serve longer sentences in return for reduced canning.

Law and justice have to be administered fairly and accurately. Any deviation from these principles is unacceptable. Dickson paid for his crime, so must the Law and Home Affairs ministries whose staff and processes had caused Dickson, a young man of twenty years old immense physical, emotional, and psychological pain. They must also pay for Madam Ho's anguish. Try to imagine her suffering when she first found out about the mistake. She was scared, and could not sleep.

I know of Singapore parents who had sleepless nights during their children's exam periods--you multiply this many times over and that may had been what Madam Ho went through. She is a claimant in this case and rightfully so. She is asking the Government for $300,000 for settlement and if the Government does not offer a settlement that she is willing to accept, then the case goes to court.

Is $300,000 too much? I do not think so considering the ordeal Madam Ho and Dickson went through. How about $3m if this case goes to court? $3m will include punitive damages, over and above the compensation. One of the main reasons for punitive damages is to deter the defendant (in this case, the Government) from making the same mistake again (i.e. the 3rd time). Then in my opinion, it's justified because I do not want to see another individual suffering likewise.

Recently, IRAS has decided they will pay interest on tax refunds to taxpayers if they are late. This is a form of deterrent for IRAS to be inefficient and it helps to improve their productivity. So, when IRAS is slow, they are penalized; similarly when the Government makes a canning mistake, they should also be penalized.

I also find the procedures of administering canning disturbing. The procedures include verifying with the prisoner that the number of strokes of canning as specified in the warrant of commitment is correct. A court officer prepares this warrant of commitment. So, what if the prisoner forgets how many strokes of canning he had been sentenced? Why is it the prisoner's responsibility to confirm that the number of strokes were correct?

A prison is a place in which individuals are physically confined or interned, and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms. As such, prisoners lose their dignity of being a normal human being and can be intimidated by a stressful environment. This may also cause them to be unable to remember certain information.

However, in this case, Dickson had claimed that he told prison officers of the mistake on the first day he entered prison. Madam Ho also claimed her son had put his thumbprint on the documents because the same officers he had complained to were there during the caning. Dickson was worried if he raised the matter again with them, he would be punished further. He also thought that if they wanted to check, they would have done so two weeks earlier.

The Government has regretted the error, but said $3m demand is not acceptable. Therefore, the issue is now is about money.

Singaporeans should ask ourselves these questions:

1) Can you accept such a mistake which had happened before and which had been made by our excellent legal and home protection systems?

2) When you had bought a top-tier expensive BMW car, which did not deliver on its performance etc., what do you expect BMW to do?

3) When your renowned plastic surgeon botches your operation and causes you permanent scarrings, what do you do?


As a Singapore citizen, I can expect to have a high standard and quality of living. I can also expect to enjoy equal opportunities in life regardless of race, language, or religion. I can even expect a successful and buoyant economy crafted by our leaders with good governance. All these have been made possible by having a good civil service who are paid well.

There lies the crux of my point: If we pay well for a good civil service, we should also penalize well for grievous mistakes made by the civil service. With that, I support Madam Ho and I hope the Government will offer her a reasonable settlement. If not, I pray that her lawyer, Mr. Joseph Chen Kok Siang, will give her good advice on how to proceed. If this case has its day in court, may justice prevail for the pain, anguish, fear, and hurt suffered.