Sure A Not

SINGAPORE: Associate Professor Winston Chow has been elected co-chair of the bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ top climate science body.

A Lee Kong Chian Research Fellow at the Singapore Management University, Assoc Prof Chow had previously served as a lead author for the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

His nomination was one of 17 for the role of co-chair. Following his successful election, he will work with Professor Bart van den Hurk of the Netherlands as fellow co-chairs.

According to the IPCC’s website, the 34-member IPCC Bureau provides guidance to the panel on scientific and technical aspects of its assessments, in addition to giving advice on management and strategic issues.

Assoc Prof Chow, who specialises in urban climate, will head the Working Group II on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

The Working Group II assesses the “vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it”, according to the IPCC.

Continue Reading

SINGAPORE: The prosecution is seeking to impeach the credit of a witness in the trial of suspended police officer Kevin Chelvam, who is accused of criminal offences related to the death of a maid in his household.

The witness, Chelvam’s former mother-in-law Prema S Naraynasamy, had purportedly given inconsistent testimony in court that was different from what she had previously said in police statements and her own court documents for her offences.

The case stems from the death of 24-year-old Myanmar maid Piang Ngaih Don, following months of abuse and starvation by Chelvam’s then-wife, Gaiyathiri Murugayan, and her mother Prema.

Gaiyathiri and Prema have already been convicted for their roles in the fatal abuse, and are serving 30 and 17 years’ jail.

Prema in particular pleaded guilty to instigating Chelvam to remove a closed-circuit television (CCTV) recorder that contained incriminating footage of the regular assaults on the maid.

Chelvam is the last to be dealt with by the courts. He is on trial for four charges of hurting the maid, abetting Gaiyathiri in starving her, removing evidence in the form of the CCTV recorder and lying to the police.  

Even though Prema had pleaded guilty to all her offences and accepted court documents that detailed how she had directed Chelvam to remove the CCTV recorder, Prema gave an account in court that the prosecution said was “a blatant attempt” to change evidence.

THE “NEW” EVIDENCE

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Teh said Prema made three new points in court. First, she said she was trying to pull the CCTV recorder out, before Chelvam came and ripped it out.

Second, she claimed that she felt Chelvam unplugged the CCTV recorder because he was afraid that she would get electrocuted.

Third, she said that Chelvam threw the CCTV recorder on the bed and left the house.

Mr Teh said this was “entirely inconsistent with the version of events” Prema had previously given the police. This was a statement she gave on the day the maid was found dead.

Asked to explain the inconsistencies, Prema insisted that her new version was the correct one. She said that she was not “feeling mentally well” and did not know “what to talk” as she was very distressed and felt like she was “going insane”.

She also said she was not concentrating when the police statement was taken and instead “panicked” as she did not know what to do.

When pressed by the prosecution, she said: “I’m just lost. I don’t understand anything. I’m scared.”

When Mr Teh put it to Prema that her new oral testimony about pulling out the CCTV recorder was a blatant attempt to change her evidence using her testimony in court, Prema said: “No, your honour, I promise I never do that. I don’t want to change anything.”

“To my knowledge, I was trying to do it first, not that I’m trying to cover Kevin, no. As far as I’m concerned, I was the one who was trying to remove it, and then Kevin ripped it out,” said Prema.

“Why would you suggest that you were covering for Kevin?” asked Mr Teh.

“You’re asking the same question over and over again, it seems to me like that from the question,” answered Prema.

The prosecution was unable to complete their cross-examination of Prema with a view to impeach her, because of time constraints. The cross-examination will continue on Friday.

If Prema’s credit as a witness is impeached, the court may choose not to rely on her oral testimony in court, preferring instead other statements she had made.

This development came at the tail-end of Prema’s turn on the stand. She had been testifying for two full days as a prosecution witness in Chelvam’s trial.

PROSECUTION GRILLING ITS OWN WITNESS

Earlier on Friday, Mr Teh had asked Prema questions about certain answers she gave defence lawyer Pratap Kishan.

He said Prema gave a “glowing character reference” of Chelvam, saying he was not the sort of person who would cause hurt to the maid.

She also claimed that Chelvam was just trying to wake the maid up by lifting her head, in an incident captured on CCTV footage.

CCTV footage played in court showed Prema hitting the maid repeatedly before giving her a plate of food. As the maid sat on the kitchen floor eating slowly, Gaiyathiri and Prema were seen gesturing at her.

Chelvam, who was washing dishes in the kitchen, was later shown lifting the maid by grabbing her hair. As the maid was lightweight, she was hoisted off the floor while still in cross-legged position.

When Mr Teh tried to show Prema the footage and asked her to explain her evidence, Prema refused to look at it, saying she was “unable to”.

She did the same for all other footage of the maid being abused, refusing to look at the screen and staring at the Tamil interpreter instead, or looking down.

Prema steadfastly maintained that she had never deprived the maid of any food and that the maid was never starved as punishment for mistakes. Instead, she insisted that the maid ate a lot.

Mr Teh showed her extracts of messages from a family group chat, which included herself, Gaiyathiri, Chelvam and her former daughter-in-law Isabella.

In one exchange, Gaiyathiri told the group that she caught the maid stealing spoilt ondeh ondeh from the dustbin at 1am. She said the maid locked herself in the toilet to eat it.

“She loves the dustbin so much. Piece of shit,” said Gaiyathiri in the group chat.

The maid weighed only 24kg including her body bag when she died on Jul 26, 2016.

Turning to Prema, Mr Teh said: “According to you, Don always stole food. And you knew Gaiyathiri tied her to the window grille to prevent her from stealing food. Why do you think Don had to steal food?”

“She eats a lot. Whatever it is, she eats a lot,” said Prema. “She eat as we give and give. Kevin is the only one working. If she is going to eat 1 or 2 kilos a day, how is Kevin going to survive?”

“We give her food as normal but she eats more than that. In that case, Kevin has to be a millionaire,” she exclaimed.

“In prison, I get four pieces of bread. Some of them are really hungry. Four pieces of bread is not enough, but they cannot get more than that. It’s standard. Four slices. So is the rice.”

The prosecutor then cut in, saying: “This trial, Madam Prema, is about Don. It’s not about you.”

“But you’re asking me questions,” retorted Prema.

She had told the court previously that she gave the maid four slices of bread and a big cup of coffee for breakfast.

Mr Teh put it to her that some of her evidence, which was brand new information, was “an afterthought and a complete fabrication”, but Prema disagreed.

The trial continues on Friday and Gaiyathiri is expected to testify at some point.

Continue Reading

Less than a week after news of the CPIB probe involving Mr Iswaran broke, former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin – who had recently apologised for using “unparliamentary language” – and MP Cheng Li Hui resigned from parliament and the PAP after it was revealed the pair had an affair.

Answering questions on the matter, Mr Lee said he was first alerted to the relationship between Mr Tan and Ms Cheng after the last General Election in 2020, and had spoken to the former about this relationship most recently in February. 

Mr Tan admitted his mistake and offered his resignation at the time. 

After their conversation in February, Mr Lee had accepted Mr Tan’s resignation, but told him “I needed to make sure the residents of Kembangan-Chai Chee and Marine Parade continued to be taken care of”.

But “very recently”, Mr Lee came across information that “strongly suggested” that Mr Tan and Ms Cheng’s relationship had continued, and he “decided then that Mr Tan had to go forthwith”.

Responding to a question from BBC about whether the government was “actually being upfront” about Mr Iswaran’s arrest and the extramarital affair between Mr Tan and Ms Cheng, Mr Wong said he understood why people have these questions. 

On Mr Iswaran’s case, Mr Wong stressed again that the CPIB is an independent agency that has legal powers to conduct thorough investigations. “And it is up to them, their operational prerogative, what information to put up at every stage of the investigation.” 

When Mr Lee and Mr Wong spoke on the issue when the news broke, the information was based on the CPIB statement at the time, the latter noted during the BBC interview. 

“We did not want to go beyond what CPIB was prepared to say on that day,” said Mr Wong. 

“There are operational considerations and it is up to CPIB to make that call. They decided not to say it at the start, but a few days later, they were prepared to reveal the fact that the Minister was arrested. After all, bear in mind, on this case, there was no public information about it.” 

When asked about whether he understood the public’s frustration about having the right to know when the arrest was made, Mr Wong said that he did. 

“But I hope the public also understands and respects operational considerations, and the autonomy and independence in which CPIB acts,” he continued. 

“I believe Singaporeans have full trust in the work of the CPIB; that throughout our history, their track record is clear and evident for all to see. We have zero tolerance for corruption and CPIB acts independently, and are very thorough in their investigation.” 

Continue Reading