Spare The Children

The Taiwan Government seems to be also having problem with the teaching of their Second Language, English. To me, the slogan on the placard seems to be suggesting "Spare The Children" rather than "Give a break to children" as translated in the arcticle. This is the interesting part about learning languages.

Abstracted From The Straits Times ( May 17, 2010)

TAIPEI - LEARNING English is an obsession in Taiwan, but a plan to boost instruction in the language for elementary school students has triggered an unusual response - outrage.

A demonstrator holds a protest placard reading "Give a break to children" during a rally in Taipei. Around 3,000 teachers, school children and their parents joined the rally against a plan by Taipei county government to increase three hours of English classes per week for elementary school children. -- AFP

Taipei county wants to add two English classes to the weekly schedule from September, thus doubling or in some cases tripling the pupils' exposure to the language, but teachers, students and their parents are not happy.

'Kids should have time to enjoy their a childhood,' said Su You-liang, a teacher at Ta Kuan Elementary School in Panchiao city.

On Sunday, thousands of children and grown-ups took to the streets of Taipei, urging the county government to scrap what they called an 'illegal plan'. The two additional English classes are supposed to help local school children catch up with their counterparts in Singapore and Hong Kong, education officials said.

The export-dependent island has long had a love affair with the English language, seeing proficiency as a prerequisite for success, with President Ma Ying-jeou routinely doing interviews with foreign reporters in the language.

Many Taiwanese complain that the English instruction they receive at school is insufficient, and a plethora of private schools specialising in the language have evolved across the island. -- AFP

MTL - Changed Strategy In This Issue But What Is The Real Problem & Solution ?

"EDUCATION Minister Ng Eng Hen apologised yesterday for giving the 'wrong impression' in a recent press interview that his ministry was planning to reduce the mother tongue weightage." (Straits Times, May 12, 2010)

"I think I should have chosen my words more carefully and apologise for creating that wrong impression," he said of his interview three weeks ago with The Straits Times and Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao.

In that interview, Dr Ng had said the Ministry of Education (MOE) was looking at options to address the overemphasis on exams, where 'mother tongue languages count for so much in the PSLE'.

"The worry is whether it could exclude someone from progressing in his educational pathway even if he did well in other subjects," he had said.
There is a changed strategy in addressing this issue by the PM and the Education Minister about MTL teaching and examinations in our education system, but what is the real solution for promoting the quality of teaching of the MTL in our education system?


My Opinion

The real problem is that in Singapore, our system is always searching for "easy" tools to quick-fix a "problem". I felt it was an attempt to stop antagonising some parents for a quick fix because Election is near. Hence, the issue almost saga but the strategy backfired.

When the Governemnt cannot use "money" as a tool to quick-fix a problem, they often use their policies, and hence "examinations" are targetted as a quick fix.

I believe language should be taught through a "natural" way and process. I do not think Chinese as a MTL is taught in a unique way in China today via quick-fix manipulation, through examination policies or emphasis by weightage on examinations.

I recall I was amongst the pioneer batches required to pass Chinese at "A" Levels in order to enter our local university. My peers who did not like Chinese as 2nd Langauge, and took Malay; had cursed and sworn at that policy then. That was the "trial and error" phase to introduce MTL education.

I personally learned Chinese the "natural" and "simple" way, ironically when our education system was not so well structured and complex.

Today, I work for a subsidiary of a China state-run MNC. I am employed more because of my specialist skillset in Contracts, as well as my knowledge of the English langauge; rather than my ability in the Chinese language. But with my MTL knowledge learned as a 2nd language, I am able to communicate and appreciate the Chinese culture, style of management and way of doing business.

I do not and need not speak as fast as natural Chinese native speakers, but I can follow at the speed they are talking or delivering their message, in order to work with them. And I communicate at my own speed, and also in the imperfect Singaporean mode, due to my early upbringing in a Hokkien dialact environment.

I believe this was also the way I learned English as the First Language. While in our university, I had to get use to listening to lecturers speaking different brands of English - UK, USA, Australia, NZ, HK and other Asian nationalities including our very own Singlish, and it was not about studying languages but on the very technical subject on "Architectural Buildings and Construction".

In fact, it was harder for me to cope with learning English than Chinese at the early stage. Today, I know both pretty well, although I have lost touch in written Chinese. But I can read sufficiently well.

I believe which ever langauge one knows better, one will tend to use that language as the "comprehending" language in the thought process. I do not know if any language expert can prove me wrong. So my tendency is to listen well in Chinese to a native speaker and then use English language to decipher its meaning. This is a habit which is hard to rid completely and slows the communication process. Hence, I do not agree completely to the suggestion on the use of English to teach Chinese / Mandarin.

However, my above handicap does not stop me from understanding the Chinese culture, management style, and ways of doing business...as long as I can catch the spoken Chinese words fast enough.

The real problem is we do not have the "cultural" environment to help us learn the language. "Culture" or "Wen Hua" ... means language (wen) which is just the first part or beginning to culture, and we need the bigger environment to perfect the learning of the Chinese language. When one master the langauge, he is most likely to go on to master the understanding of culture. And in China, when you master both, you are considserd as "educated". This environemnt, we do not have, to support our learning of the language. This is not simply solved by using quick-fix tools and policies like having native speakers as language teachers or putting weightage on examinations, or even the way it is tested or examined. It helps a little but is certainly not the cure.

The learners must be immersed in the right larger environment.

Mother tongue still vital

"THE teaching of mother tongue languages remains a vital feature of Singapore's education system, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday" (Straits Times, May 4, 2010).

The PM issued a brief statement in the wake of strong reactions to Education Minister Ng Eng Hen's recent comments that the weighting given to mother tongue languages in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) may be cut.

The sudden announcement of "quick changes", quite obviously to please the electorate, like this one and other changes such as the upward revision of employers' CPF rate, are clear signs that the Election may be imminent.

It seems that each Minister is busy coming out with his own "quick fix" to test the response of the electorate or to please them. We are even assured of "total water sufficiency" by 2061 when the 2nd Water Agreement with Malaysia expires, as announced by SM Goh Chok Tong. (Mypaper, May 4, 2010)

If not because of the Election, such "productivity" in implementing policies is rarely seen and often handled with much "red-tape" ?

An educated and more sophisticated electorate should still look in depth beneath the surface of such "quick fixes"; by exercising their voting discreetly, in view of the outcry of "blunders" in policies by the incumbent Government, such as the heavy losses incurred by the two SWF investment funds, despite installed structural measures, supposingly to safeguard our national reserves.

Currently, mother tongue has a weighting of 25 per cent, similar to that for English, mathematics and science, the other three subjects in the PSLE. Quite obviously by lowering the weightage on mother tongue, the emphasis and burden in examinations is not going to be alleviated but shift to other subjects.

In a different perspective, objectives of our education system should not be so easily given up in just a feat to gain more votes during the Election.

Have TV debates before election

The following suggestion as published in the ST Online, by Mr. Lee Seck Kay, is a good one.

In my own opinion, all parties should have equal air-time to an open debate, which should not be correlated to the number of candidates the party can field.

This is the type of radical "CHANGE" in the he electoral process a more educated and matured electorate is looking forward to. The election process should also be fair to the electorate, and not just the opposing candidates alone.

And not just about silly strutural changes like redrawing electoral boundaries and the number of NMP or NCMP to be allowed in Parliament ...which in my opnion are disguising for a "CHANGE".

We are talking about "productivity" for Singapore at large and I would think this is "productivity" applied to POLITICS. Give the electorate a chance to judge the candidates.

Reference

The following article is reproduced from ST Online - Forum.
Apr 26, 2010

Have TV debates before election

ALTHOUGH the next general election is not due until early 2012, there are signs that political parties are already gearing up to do battle. Now may be the time to consider and prepare for a television debate as part of the anticipated political contest.

What I have in mind is Britain's unprecedented series of American-style television debates in which leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties stood toe to toe in front of a studio audience debating issues of national importance.

By all accounts, the 90-minute sessions were a resounding success and one more will follow before polling day on May 6, by which time Britons will be better informed about the parties' manifestoes, their strengths and weakness, and the calibre of their leaders.

We could do something similar to complement the usual campaigning. To be held under a similar format and with rules agreed by all major contesting parties, each debate could be presided over by a moderator to ensure orderliness.

The proposed TV debate would reach out to a far larger audience and put all the rhetoric of the campaign trail into sharp focus. What the parties stand for, their thoughts on the road ahead for Singapore, and their views on issues such as the cost of living, health-care costs, the ageing population and national assets would all provide the basis for the voters' decision on Polling Day.

Let's first dispatch a team to Britain to study how to organise such an event that could well turn out to be a watershed in our election history.

Lee Seck Kay

Earth Hour 2010

Thousands of individuals and organisations in Singapore observed Earth Hour on Saturday evening, 27 March 2010, for the second year running.

The symbolic gesture to combat climate change was highlighted when skyscrapers and buildings darkened for an hour from 8:30pm.

But after this day, what should we do to make adjustments to our daily lives to reduce carbon emissions?

This is link to a nice video by homeproject - HOME. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

"We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth's climate ..."

It takes one and a half hour. It is worth spending the time to enjoy this video and reflects on our daily life.

Enslaving a person for life

OPINION

I like this article, "Enslaving a person for life", written by Mr Tan Kin Lian in his Blog. It explains simply but clearly to a layman the risks and implication of joining the fray in speculation of HDB re-sale flats. I strongly believe that a national housing policy to ensure affordable housing for the vast majority of Singaporeans should not be captialised by any party (Singapore citizens, PR, etc.) for speculation, even if it was first implemented to support "asset enhancement" objectives.

Some argues that prices of HDB flats are solely influenced by the HDB because it is a monopoly and controls "supply" totally. If so, the HDB has a greater onus to ensure both new and resale HDB flats are still affordable.

In my opinion, there are other important factors determining whether HDB flats are affordable and sustainable. The HDB perhaps would like "supply" to be the only factor influencing prices, so that they could push out BTO flats at high "premium" prices since they are many times over-booked.

This leads us to question the meaning of "Sustainability"! I do not think the current high prices are generally affordable and sustainable.

(i) Even with loose immigration policy, can our population increase forever?

(ii) To sustain the high prices of HDB flats, there must be enough jobs to sustain the salary / wages of the population - true bred Singaporeans & immigrants alike (including foreign talents{FTs}).  True FTs may not even join the HDB market for re-sale flats. If they can afford it, they would rather speculate (or is it still investing?) in the private housing market.

(iii) What used to sustain the high prices of HDB and private housing here was the high CPF rates and wages; particularly the middle income group. Can CPF or wages be restored, even with enough high paying jobs being created?

With CPF ceiling for the middle income capped and the middle income wages squeezed in the last few years, and the cost of living going up forever, how could the high prices of HDB flats be sustained?

I note even in the private residential market, developers are testing the market, pricing their new launches at least one "click" above their old pricing strategy. What used to be priced at $700 p.s.f is now priced at $900 p.s.f. Will they be able to sustain this pricing in the private market, where supply is even more acute (due to location factor)? They might be likely to succeed...

But, can there be sufficient upgraders from the HDB market? If there are, the HDB resale market must still move in tandem, if purchasers are mere speculators. If not, people must be so confident like some die-hard supporters and believers of the HDB as the sole authority to influence price and saviour if the "asset bubble" should burst.

Even if say there is no speculation, can this gap of $200 p.s.f be plugged by upgraders? If not, it is hard to sustain prices. We already find HDB re-sale flats un-affordable ... how to find buyers to pluck this $200 p.s.f gap? It is still demand and not supply which determines prices.

The majority of us would want to supply at current high prices or even up the HDB re-sale market by another click of near to $200 p.s.f but who would purchase them at such high prices?

Will there be more "daft" people who are willing to buy at such high prices?

The MM thinks that we would be "daft" to vote the MND Minister out ...perhaps because he "forecasts" and expects us to expect the MND Minister to find such "daft" people to enter the market, be it the HDB resale or private residential property market ... that is if we still believe in him.

But we also need "daft" employers who would need to pay such high wages to sustain jobs / high wages here and these residential markets (HDB & Private) in turn would be sustained...if not 10 years; 20~30 years for as long as our bankers would want to lend you the money and "enslave" you. In fact, I wonder in the post MiniBond crisis era, will banks remain so aggressive in their lending policies...just take a look at how PMETs are losing jobs.

Perhaps, we may have "daft" people who are willing to gamble at our 2 casinos who are lucky enough to win enough to purchase properties here to sustain our property markets.

Could we allow those who are not "daft" but able to "wash" their "dirty" money / currencies here through our casinos, to then invest in our property markets (HDB Resale or Private) ?

I think it would be really "daft" to join the fray in speculating in the HDB resale flats, and be enslaved ... and the HDB housing policy on the other hand should not support this speculation just to hold up property prices and attempt to sustain the HDB market to protect the "asset enhancement" scheme.

What is needed is not a "fear to change" in view of "asset enhancement" but to "recognise the need for change" in HDB policies "to keep price affordable".

Reference

The following article is reproduced from Mr. Tan Kin Lian's Blog.

Enslaving a person for life

When a working person buys a very expensive property, he is enslaved for life. He has to work hard and long hours to earn sufficient income to meet the monthly payment over a period of 30 years - which is almost the entire working life. The worker cannot afford to be unemployed, as the monthly payment still has to be made, or the debt will mount, leading to high interest charges. Many people are highly stressed by this heavy burden and uncertainty.

There is a view that most people have bought their property earlier at lower prices, and the recent increase in price has enhanced the value of their assets. This is mostly an illusion. As they own only one property, they are not able to sell the property (to unlock its value) as they still need a place to stay. They also have to find someone to buy the property at the high price, and the next buyer will then be enslaved for life.

The people who benefit from the property bubble are the foreigners who are able to sell their property at the higher price, pocket the profits and return to their countries to buy a property at a modest price. The local Singaporeans have to carry the lifetime burden of the expensive property.

I hope that Singaporeans know the difference between a fair value and an inflated value from a property. They should not chase property prices at its inflated value, hoping to make a profit from its further inflation. The property bubble will burst and cause great financial hardship on them.

I also hope that our government leaders will take measures to bring property prices down to a reasonable multiple of the average earnings. As existing properties are over-priced, they have now to create a new market for a different type of "affordable" properties, which are not subject to the normal market forces. Let the consumers decide which market they wish to "invest" in.

Tan Kin Lian

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:20 PM

Sunday, February 28, 2010

GONG XI FA CAI

How To Ensure Affordable Low Cost Housing?

The Government and HDB should consider seriously to practise market segregation into two HDB housing markets, in order to curb speculation and to ensure affordability of HDB flats, as I suggested in a posting in Mr. Tan Kin Lian's Blog. Mr Tan agreed with me that this approach could work.

The first HDB property which is said to be heavily subsidied by the state must be sold back to the HDB at cost. The HDB can then re-sell at near cost, based on adjusted price, with some appreciation in value to another first timer or second timer.

A first-timer who wants to upgrade to another bigger HDB flat or if he moves on to a private property, should sell back his first HDB flat to the HDB at cost.

A second time HDB owner should either buy from the open market at higher price or he should be allowed to buy from the HDB at an adjusted price (not subsidised) higher than cost (subsidised) but lower than market price. If a second timer chose to buy from HDB, he should sell back to HDB again. If he buys from the open market, he sells back to the open market and not HDB.

Those who choose to venture into the open market should transact at open market prices later on. For choice units bought back from first timers, the HDB should be allowed to release them into the open market but these would not be purchased back by HDB at open market prices.

Those who already enjoy two times purchases from HDB should only be allowed to transact in the "open" market, i.e., they cannot purchase from HDB again.

This way, the fluctuation and escalation in prices should be contained.

The HDB must manage the first market by controlling buy-back and make prices reasanoable and affordable for average Singaporeans. The second market is left to free market forces for "stubborn purchasers" or "die-hard" speculators who prefer to take up such risks.

Once price is contained in the first market, it will start to dampen and hit the second open market. I am sure speculators will think twice about speculating if the idea is implemented.

We can see if people who demands to sell as high as possible will get marginalised and stuck in the second market to regret.

There would then be 2 markets for HDB flats. The HDB should not behave like a private developer. It should manage one market for first timers and also those who prefer to buy the second time from HDB and keep the prices in this market low and affordable.

At present the HDB is pushing out new flats at high prices, chasing after HDB resale flat prices by tagging its price based on market pricing, and they are catching up very closely with private property prices, be it under BTO or whatever marketing scheme,  These new owners also expect a ridiculuos appreciation in property 5 years later. This appreciation is causing the escalation and a "bubble" in HDB flat prices.

A national housing policy should not be capitalised by any persons or entities for the purpose of speculation. I believe my suggestion is practical and is fair to both existing and new HDB purchasers.

This is much better than "forcing" all to join in the speculation fray, capitlaised by parties, due to a restrictive national housing policy which was designed inherently to support unrealistic "asset enhancement" and "appreciation", but actually causing a "bubble" in the HDB housing market most of the time and affecting general affordability.

Speedier mediation for PMEs

Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong announced on 26 January 2010 during his opening address at the Singapore Tripartism Forum On Managing Manpower Challenges that a tripartite mediation process will be in place next year to help junior and mid-level professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) earning up to $4,500 a month to address common employment issues with their employers. (Source : Mypaper 27 January 2010)

Currently, PMEs mostly have to resort to civil litigation to settle employment disputes with their employers, which can be costly and protracted for both parties. Quite often, the disputes involved the entitlement of retrenchment benefits. Current employment laws and regulations in this area are still non-existent or immatured to protect PMEs. As a result, employers are able to take advantage of employees when retrenchment is necessary.

I had been a victim of such bad employment practices during a previous downturn when I was retrenched from my 13-year PME job and I was a member of an NTUC affiliated union . The NTUC had advised me then about the the setback of existing regulations in protecting PMEs facing retrenchment. At the end, I had an unsatisfactory meagre setllement as compared to my length of service, despite NTUC's support for my case.

Mypaper subsequently had clarified to me in an email that the mediation process covers three areas:

1) salary arrears,
2) issues arising from individual employment contracts,
3) payment of retrenchment benefits.

However, only issues concerning salary arrears can be taken to MOM's Labour Court.

Is it also due to a handicap or the non-existence of employment laws that cases could not be taken up to the Labour Court? When there are no relevant laws, how could the Labour Court be convened to hear a dispute? There would be no basis to  adjudge a case.

With no avenues to refer disputes to the MOM's Labour Court, non-unionised PMEs and those unionised but earning in excess of $4,500.00 are greatly disadvantaged. Even those who failed to seek redress through the new dispute resolution process will come to a dead end.

What are the real reasons behind this unwillingness to give ample protection by statutues to a PME facing retrenchment?

How long would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or any other relevant Authorities take to review current employment laws and regulations in this area?

Why is the salary cap fixed at S$4,500.00 for the tripartite mediation process?

Why is there a general reluctance by the MOM and our Government to look at mandatory payment of severance pay or retrenchment benefits in Singapore?

How long more must a PME employee wait to be adequately "protected" from unfair employment practices?

Reference : Mypaper January 27, 2010
Speedier mediation for PMEs
By Rachel Chan

Longest working hours - 45.9 hours a week

According to a report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), SINGAPORE's workers continue to lead the pack when it comes to the number of hours they put in at work.

The report puts them at the top of 13 economies in the group's Global Wages Report for 2008-09, surpassing even the notoriously hardworking Japanese and Taiwanese.

The ILO report did not specify the exact numbers. Based on a check with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Straits Times put the working hours here in Singapore at 45.9 hours a week for 2008 and the first quarter of last year. In 2007, the figure was 46.3 hours.

Under the Employment Act, the limit on working hours is 44 hours a week or eight hours a day. Beyond this, workers are entitled to 1.5 times their hourly rate of pay. The working hours do not include a tea break or lunchtime. As this applies to employees drawing less than $2,000 a month, it means at least 93% of the working population is working such or even much longer working hours.

This long working hours is not only affecting work-life-balance but is also contributing to declinding annual birth rate. Despite this setback, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) is still urging workers to work "Cheaper, Better, Faster" as a total approach concept - an overarching macro-strategy that embraces both companies and workers in a paradigm shift towards a more competitive economy. Perhaps the NTUC should change its slogan to "Cheaper, Better, Faster and Shorter Hours" to encourage workers to work effectively for better work-life-balance.

However, despite such long hours worked, the Minister Mentor had ironically commented that Singaporeans have become "less hard-driving and hard-striving." during an interview with the National Geographic last year.

Reference

Straits Times Online Jan 11, 2010

Longest working hours

They top international poll of 13 economies; MOM's figure is 45.9 hours a week for 2008

By Dickson Li

Prices of HDB flats at record high in Q4 2009

The following was reported in the Straits Times online, Jan 4, 2010 (By Jessica Cheam)

HDB prices hit new high

"PRICES of Housing Board resale flats continued its relentless climb, rising 3.8 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year to hit a fresh record.

 The Resale Price Index (RPI) hit 150.7 in the fourth quarter, up from 145.2 in the third quarter, according to flash estimate released by the HDB on Monday.

 This means HDB resale flat prices rose about 8 per cent for 2009. Analysts say this is due to the nascent economic recovery and strong demand for resale flats."

Opinion

The HDB said it will continue to launch more build-to-order flats in 2010 "if there is sustained demand for new flats". "It will ensure that there is an adequate supply of flats to meet prevailing housing needs", it said.

The Board said in a statement on Jan 5 that 12,000 new build-to-order (BTO) flats will be offered this year if there is sustained demand.

Its move comes amid growing concerns on the supply of HDB flats, which analysts say is not keeping up with current high levels of demand.

But the real issue is whether the current demand is sustainable in the long run at the high prices (BTO) flats are being released into the market. Even if demand is temporarily sustainable due to young couples rushing in to buy a unit for marriage despite the heavy financial burden, will it be sustainable in the longer run, since prices of new units are tagged to re-sale prices in the open market and not necessarily its real costs, not forgetting prices had gone up by 8% last year.

Hence, not only current prices of HDB resale flats are high, future prices of HDB flats will continue to escalate and aggravate the existing "asset bubble". Will HDB flats remain "affordable" in the longer run?

Not only must the existing pricing formula for new flats be reviewed but the "market subsidy" principle should also be re-examined to ensure affordable pricing relevant to costs and income elastcity; rather than leaving it to a free float and wild market forces where high HDB flat prices is politically justified by economic growth and unrealistic "asset enhancement" policies.

Nevertheless, general affordability was otherwise assured by MM Lee during his recent visit to The Pinnacle at Duxton Plain, the newly-completed crown jewel of Singapore's public housing in his Tanjong Pagar constituency, which the Minister Mentor said is symbolic of the spectacular transformation of our country.

Other Reference

Dec 14, 2009 Straits Times online

Flat prices still affordable
MM: Cost grows with economy, but Govt will help first-home buyers
By Zakir Hussain , POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

In the interest of justice for court to right juducial wrongs

My Letter published in Todayonline 09:30 PM Jan 06, 2010
Online Only - "Miscarriage of justice should not even happen at all..."


I refer to "'In the interest of justice' for court to right judicial wrongs" (Jan 6).

The report posed an interesting opening question: Whose responsibility is it to put right miscarriages of justice, if ever there are any - the judiciary or the President?

The majority of cases would not go up to this level as to pose a responsibility issue between the Court of Appeal and the President. Subjecting a plaintiff or claimant to serious drawback of an unending possibility of litigation seems a greater possibility. If our judiciary works solely on a system of counter-checking and following court decisions, this opening question may be apt. But in reality, this is not the case.

Time and cost constraints are important issues, not to the "officers of the court and judges" administering the system, but to the plaintiff and defendant, as in a commercial case where the "principle of finality" would be helpful in bringing justice to the aggrieved party speedily. The legal process is a rush. When we rush, are we hasty?

It is more important for those administering justice to see a greater responsibility to answer for its own miscarriage of justice during the process rather than leaving it for the legal process to take its natural course to ensure final justice. This should not be the case only when it involves a "capital punishment" case.

While the "finality principle" should not be applied strictly in criminal cases, I doubt the "finality principle" is conversely being strictly applied to help our system achieve greater justice and fairness for contending parties in commercial cases, such as those involving tortuous responsibility to compensate accident victims.

The report quoted the three-judge Court of Appeal to have said that it was "in the interest of justice" for the court to have that power to right its own wrong. Yes, we can leave the power for the court, but will judges (who enjoy the benefit of immunity like diplomatic agents) be willing to see and acknowledge its own wrongs while following the "finality principle"? Or will "ensuring of fairness" still be left for a higher court to decide, which drags the legal process. I believe the tendency is to leave it for a higher Court and the judicial system to take its natural course. A party adjudging a case will not admit or recognizes his own wrong.

Perhaps, we had left our judicial system to work too much on a model of counter-checking and following others' precedence under the Common Law system and if not, to leave it for a higher Court by taking the easier route of an "interim" judgment. The converse is to exercise taking greater (and own) responsibility to ensure fairness and finality in the administration of justice, without leaving it to a possibility of unending contentious matter which will prolong the legal process and place substantial burden on those seeking justice financially.
The problem is not simply one of pushing up or pressing down responsibility in the decision and authority chain. Miscarriage of justice should not be a by-product of our system to determine whose responsibility and which level of authority has the power to decide. It should not even happen at all in the first place, particularly in a capital punishment case.

What if the accused who is already sentenced is sent to death; and the defence lawyer had not acted in time? In the case of Yong Vui Kong, the 21-year-old who was sentenced to death last November for trafficking heroin, the deputy public prosecutor had argued against his defence lawyer seeking a stay of execution saying that granting it "would open the floodgates and allow for abuse of the judicial process".

In commercial cases, the "finality principle" is more likely to work conversely in forcing a decision down on both parties in litigation (plaintiff and defendant). It does not necessarily ensure greater fairness to an aggrieved party. Majority of cases would not go up to this level, wherein do the "floodgates" lie? Ensuring justice to the young accused is still more important.