DOCSLIB.ORG

Heritage Feasts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HERITAGE FEASTS HERITAGE A Collection of Singapore Family Recipes Family A Collection of Singapore This cookbook focuses on how heritage food forms an indelible link between one’s sense of history and one’s sense of family. Through vivid life stories of 30 prominent personalities who have, in different ways, made significant contributions to Singapore and 59 heritage recipes shared by them,Heritage Feasts highlights that, by learning and passing on your own family’s treasured dishes, you too are helping to strengthen and extend the fine threads of history and family. HERITAGE Heritage Feasts also encourages the modern family to create new shared moments and continue traditions of familial feasting around the dinner table. In A Collection of Singapore Family Recipes this book you will find an invaluable collection of true-blue Singaporean dishes, all beautifully illustrated with sumptuous pictures by award-winning photographer Edmond Ho. These include a family favourite from acclaimed jazz singer Claressa Monteiro—the oxtail soup by her mother, the dry mutton curry which Subhas Anandan’s mother whipped up for the renowned criminal lawyer’s long-awaited homecoming, a rare recipe for sambal buah keluak, taken from the notebooks of Mrs Seow Poh Leng, the original inspiration behind playwright Stella Kon’s acclaimed monodrama Emily of Emerald Hill, and a comforting tomato soup which filmmaker Eric Khoo enjoyed as a child. A meaningful cookbook project commissioned in celebration of Miele’s 111th anniversary, Heritage Feasts is the work of industry veterans—including FEASTS food magazine editor Joyceline Tully, local food expert Christopher Tan and top lensmen Edmond Ho and Mervin Chua—and is a rare platform for the Text by Joyceline Tully & Christopher Tan Photography by Edmond Ho & Mervin Chua promotion of Singapore culinary traditions. This project is supported by: Heritage Feasts A Collection of Singapore Family Recipes Editorial Director: Koh Yuen Lin Editor: Annette Tan Sub-Editor: Iori Chua Writers: Joyceline Tully, Christopher Tan Photographers: Edmond Ho (Jambu Studio), Mervin Chua (Aperture Ink), Lynn Chen (Photograph on Page 22), Contents Justin Loh (Photograph on Page 24) Designers: Ken Chin, Richard Tan 06 Miele: An Introduction Art Director: Alghani Soepono (Cover & personality profiles) Food Stylist: Prisia K 10 Milestones in Singapore Food History Recipe Tester: Dulcie Ng Associate Publisher: Priscilla Tan 14 What is Singapore Food? Published for Miele Pte Ltd by Ate Media Pte Ltd 20 Spring & Harvest 19 Carpenter Street #04-01 Singapore 059908 www.ate.bz 50 Birthdays Copyright © Miele Pte Ltd 78 Feasts & Faith Text copyright © Joyceline Tully & Christopher Tan. Design copyright © Ate Media Pte Ltd. The recipes in this book are the copyright of the individual personalities. 118 Unions & Partings Photography copyright © Edmond Ho, Jambu Studio (Cover; Pages 6 - 9; 36 - 49; 64 - 77; 94 - 117; 132 -143; 146 - 157 & 170 - 207). Photography copyright © Mervin Chua, Aperture Ink (Pages 22 - 35; 52 - 61; 63; 80 - 93; 120 - 131; 144 & 160 - 169) 158 Comfort Food & Family Fare Some photographs have been published previously, and are reprinted here with the kind permission of the following: Pages 12 & 13, National Archives of Singapore; Page 22 © Lynn Chen; Page 24 © Justin Loh 208 Ingredients List Special thanks to Salad, Schott Zwiesel, The Link Home and The Touch for the tableware and glassware featured on the cover; to Jenggala, Salad, Strangelets, Style Nordic, Wedgwood and Jambu Studio for the tableware and props featured on the 214 Index recipe pages; and to J's Salon for providing the location for Claressa Monteiro (Page 126). The publishers also wish to thank all contributors for their time and efforts. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, such as photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of Miele Pte Ltd, Ate Media Pte Ltd and/or the copyright owners. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and facts mentioned in this book is accurate and correct at the time of printing. Changes may have occurred since this book went to print. We will not be held liable for any damages, loss, injury or inconvenience arising in connection with the contents of the book. ISBN 978-981-08-7400-1 First printed December 2010 Printed in Singapore Heritage Feasts | 4 Heritage Feasts | 5 mountain climber & part of Singapore’s first Women’s Everest Team JOANNE SOO “With every step we took, we learned a little more about ourselves. We didn't conquer the mountain; we conquered ourselves.” It is peaceful, serene and stunning at the top of a mountain, but ask Joanne grew up on his signature dishes such as chilli crabs and chicken Joanne Soo what she misses when she is 6,000 metres above sea curry, all of which packed plenty of spice. “He always nagged me and level, and she’ll tell you it is home-cooked food, preferably spicy. “Once my elder sister to learn from him but unfortunately, we never did…It’s you get higher up in the mountains, all you would have is instant a great shame.” noodles, freeze-dried rations and energy bars,” she says. For festive occasions, especially during Chinese New Year, her That is exactly what she and her five team mates survived on during father would prepare yusheng (raw fish salad), restaurant-style, the last leg of their Everest expedition. In May 2009, they became which impressed his two young girls. Joanne recalls other favourites the first Singaporean women to reach the summit of Mount Everest, among her dad’s dishes: ayam goreng fried to crisp, juicy perfection; a phenomenal achievement that capped five years of planning and steamed egg with salted egg and century egg; and French beans with training. “With every step we took, we learned a little more about minced pork. It’s simple home-style fare, but for Joanne, they are the ourselves,” she recounts. “We didn't conquer the mountain; we ingredients of fond memories—of her father, family and her childhood. conquered ourselves.” “These days, my mother does the cooking. It is not the same, but I go For this tanned, athletic go-getter, the world’s highest peak was just back to eat with her. Home-cooked food is still the best,” she chimes. the beginning. Since the Everest expedition, Joanne has gone on other climbing trips and is in the midst of planning an expedition to Mount Aconcagua in Argentina, one of the famous Seven Summits and the highest mountain in South America. “Everest is the pinnacle of the climbing world. Now that I have climbed it, I want to use my experience to help others scale these peaks,” she enthuses. Joanne’s family is supportive of her career, even though they didn’t understand it initially. Unfortunately, her father passed away six years Joanne's dishes: ago and never got to witness his daughter’s Everest success. “My father was the family cook, and a very good one,” she says. “He had Salt-Baked Chicken, page 144 worked as a cook for more than 10 years.” San Wei Zheng Dan (Three Varieties of Steamed Eggs), page 180 Heritage Feasts | 164 Heritage Feasts | 165 San Wei Zheng Dan (Three Varieties of Steamed Eggs) Homey flavours were what Joanne Soo craved when she and her team mates undertook their successful climb to the summit of Mount Everest in May 2009. This humble dish of steamed egg ranks high as one of her favourite comfort foods, which her father used to prepare. SERVES 4 - 5 AS PART OF A 1. Prepare the necessary equipment for steaming: ideally a large wok with a steamer attachment, filled MULTI-COURSE MEAL with enough water to generate steam. Bring the water to a boil over high heat. Or if you have a steam oven, pre-heat it to 90 degrees Celsius. 2 hardboiled salted duck eggs, diced 2. Cover the bottom of a flat, deep-sided heatproof dish with an even layer of diced salted duck eggs, 2 century eggs, diced century eggs and sliced lup cheong. (Alternatively, you can divide it between 4 - 5 small dishes.) 1 lup cheong (Chinese waxed sausage), julienned 3. Beat the eggs with a pair of chopsticks. Combine with the stock (unsalted homemade chicken stock would be ideal). Add a pinch of salt to taste. Be careful with seasoning if you are using store- 2 large eggs bought stock. 400 millilitres chicken stock 4. When the mixture is well blended, pass it through a fine meshed sieve and pour it over the diced ¼ teaspoon salt (or to taste) eggs and lup cheong. Hold the sieve as close to the base of the heatproof dish as possible. Pouring 1 teaspoon light soy sauce (or to taste) the egg mixture from a great height creates bubbles in the custard. Cover the heatproof dish with ½ teaspoon sesame oil (or to taste) aluminium foil. 1 tablespoon chopped spring onions 5. Steam the dish over high heat for 5 - 10 minutes, then reduce to a low-medium flame and steam for an additional 15 - 20 minutes. Alternatively, steam it in your steam oven for 30 minutes. 6. The length of time required will vary depending upon your equipment. The finished custard should be wobbly and set, but not hard. 7. Sprinkle some soy sauce and sesame oil over the finished custard as well as some chopped spring onions. Serve immediately. Heritage Feasts | 180 Heritage Feasts | 181 playwright STELLA KON “We are basically migrant people who came here and adapted...Just take our food for example–what is in it that is not borrowed?” From the age of three, Stella Kon grew up in a sprawling mansion ancestral heritage,” says the soft-spoken 66-year-old whose family is named Oberon, under the watchful eye of her grandmother Polly, intimately tied to Singapore’s history and evolution.
Recommended publications
  • The Criminal Procedure Code 2010

    The Criminal Procedure Code 2010

    (2011) 23 SAcLJ Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework 23 MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 The concept of “balancing” prevalent in criminal justice discourse is premised on a paradigm where “state” and “individual” interests are perpetually in conflict. This article outlines the key components of the new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and discusses another dimension of the state- individual relationship. Rather than being inherently incompatible, synergistic common goals can, on occasion, be pursued between the State and an accused. The article will also consider areas in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where conflicts between “state” and “individual” interests have in fact arisen, and will outline the pragmatic approach that has been adopted towards their resolution. Melanie CHNG* LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Harvard); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Director, Ministry of Law. The criminal process is at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is not only a subject of great practical importance; it is also a reflection of our ideals and values as to the way in which we can accord justice to both the guilty and to the innocent.[1] I. Introduction 1 The recent legislative amendments to Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) signify a new chapter in the continuing evolution of Singapore’s criminal justice process. The new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“New CPC”),2 which came into force on * The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author and are not representative of the official position or policies of the Singapore government. The author is grateful to Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, Ms Jennifer Marie SC, Mr Bala Reddy, Professor Michael Hor, Mr Subhas Anandan, Ms Valerie Thean and Mr Desmond Lee for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article.
  • LIFE and DEATH a Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000–2010

    LIFE and DEATH a Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000–2010

    850 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2010) 22 SAcLJ LIFE AND DEATH A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000–2010 This article seeks to provide a survey and broad analysis of the law-making activities of the Singapore legislature in the context of global and national trends in biomedical and healthcare developments from 2000 to 2010 in the following areas: (a) regulation of complementary and alternative medicine; (b) epidemiology, infectious diseases and public health; (c) ethical issues in human organ transplantation; (d) mental capacity, mental health and competence issues; (e) regulation of medical and healthcare professionals; and (f) governance for biomedical research and biosafety. Charles LIM Aeng Cheng* BA (Hons) (Cambridge), MA (Cambridge); Barrister (Middle Temple), FSIArb. I. Introduction 1 In December 2000, the Singapore Bioethics Advisory Committee was established. The ensuing decade, 2000–2010, has witnessed an active Singapore legislature in the area of healthcare and biomedical issues. This article seeks to survey and discuss these legislative changes in the following broad areas: (a) regulation of complementary and alternative medicine; (b) epidemiology, infectious diseases and public health; (c) ethical issues in human organ transplantation; (d) mental capacity, mental health and competence issues; (e) regulation of medical and healthcare professionals; and (f) governance for biomedical research and biosafety. 2 Having regard to the sheer breadth and volume of the legislation generated in the past decade, this article can neither be * The author is currently the Parliamentary Counsel, Attorney-General’s Chambers and a member of the national Bioethics Advisory Committee as well as the National Medical Ethics Committee. This article is written in the author’s personal capacity and does not reflect the official views of the Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Government of Singapore or the Committees.
  • Criminal Law

    Criminal Law

    Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law Subject Coordinator: Dr S. Chandra Mohan School of Law, Singapore Management University Singapore Institute of Legal Education Part A Bar Examinations 2015 SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law (Version: 14 May 2015) INTRODUCTION The Part A Bar Examination in Criminal Law is designed to test whether overseas law graduates have obtained sufficient knowledge of the fundamental principles of criminal law in Singapore and understand how these are applied within Singapore’s criminal justice system. It is important that students keep in mind the relevant local legislative provisions and the court decisions that have interpreted these provisions (see the detailed Reading List). Singapore’s criminal law is codified and is principally contained in the Penal Code which was enacted in 1870. It is based on the Indian Penal Code and its provisions are not always similar to the English Criminal Law which its drafter, Lord Macaulay, sought to improve. Two core values of such a written Code that students must bear in mind are accessibility of the penal provisions and comprehensibility so that the layman can obtain and understand the law better. The use of ‘explanations’ and ‘illustrations’ in the sections, which give examples of the application of the provisions, are unique to the Penal Code. As the Penal Codes of India and Malaysia are similar to our Code, cases from these jurisdictions are of persuasive value in interpreting identical provisions. There are other statutes which provide for specific offences such as the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • The Insanity Defence in the Criminal Laws of the Commonwealth of Nations

    The Insanity Defence in the Criminal Laws of the Commonwealth of Nations

    Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2008] 241–263 THE INSANITY DEFENCE IN THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS Stanley Yeo∗ This article compares the M’Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the Com- monwealth of Nations for the purpose of formulating the best possible provision on the defence of insanity. The discussion is enhanced by evaluations of the concept of diminished responsibility operating in the Commonwealth, and of the provision on insanity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. I. Introduction The M’Naghten Rules propounded in 1843 by the judges of the Queen’s Bench in England1 have served as the template for the defence of insanity in the criminal law throughout much of the Commonwealth of Nations (hereinafter described as “the Commonwealth”). As might be expected, variations to the Rules have been developed either through the courts or legislatures as a result of disagreement or dissatisfaction over some feature or other of the Rules. Lately, the advancement of scientific knowledge of mental functioning has created new variations. Yet, in spite of these alternative formulations, the M’Naghten Rules continue to form part of English law and some other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Sierra Leone and the Australian state of New South Wales.2 Is retention of the Rules defensible in the light of these variations or are there aspects which warrant revision? This article seeks to answer this question through a comparative study of the M’Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the criminal laws3 of member states of the Commonwealth.4 ∗ Professor of Law, National University of Singapore.
  • Public Prosecutor V Tan Chor

    Public Prosecutor V Tan Chor

    Public Prosecutor v Tan Chor Jin [2007] SGHC 77 Case Number : CC 30/2006 Decision Date : 22 May 2007 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Tay Yong Kwang J Counsel Name(s) : Edwin San and Chew Chin Yee (DPPs) for the Prosecution; Accused in person Parties : Public Prosecutor — Tan Chor Jin 22 May 2007 Judgment reserved. Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction 1 The accused (referred to by the media as the “One-eyed Dragon” because he has an opacity over the cornea of his right eye, which became blind some seven or eight years ago), is now 41 years old. He appeared in person in this trial, having discharged counsel before the preliminary inquiry and having refused legal representation by counsel assigned to him by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. At the commencement of the trial, the accused confirmed that he did not wish to have legal representation and that he wanted to conduct the trial on his own. He spoke mainly in Mandarin but would switch to simple (and often unstructured) English every now and then. 2 The trial involves the following amended capital charge under the Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 revised edition): You, Tan Chor Jin, on the 15th day of February 2006, at Blk 223 Serangoon Avenue 4 #02-183, Singapore, did use an arm, namely a Beretta, 0.22 Calibre pistol by discharging 6 rounds from the said pistol, with intent to cause physical injury to one Lim Hock Soon, male/40 years, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4(1) read with section 4(2) of the Arms Offences Act, Chapter14.
  • Public Prosecutor V Tan Kheng Chun

    Public Prosecutor V Tan Kheng Chun

    Public Prosecutor v Tan Kheng Chun Ray [2011] SGHC 183 Case Number : Criminal Case No 6 of 2011 Decision Date : 04 August 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Gordon Oh and Peggy Pao (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the accused. Parties : Public Prosecutor — Tan Kheng Chun Ray Criminal Law [LawNet Editorial Note: The appeal to this decision in Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2011 was allowed by the Court of Appeal on 28 November 2011. See [2012] SGCA 10.] 4 August 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 The accused, Ray Tan Kheng Chun pleaded guilty to seven charges [note: 1] for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185 2008 Rev Ed). 2 The seven offences are: Charge 1 Importing not less than 14.99 grams of diamorphine. Charge 2 Importing not less than 1.12 grams of methamphetamine. Charge 3 Consumption of methamphetamine. Charge 4 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 5 Possession of another lot of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 6 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 7 Possession of three tablets of nimetazepam. The offences in Charges 1 to 5 took place on 10 October 2009. The offences in Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 took place at the Woodlands Checkpoint, and the drug consumption offence in Charge 3, took place in Malaysia. The offences in Charges 6 and 7 took place on 11 October 2009 at the accused’s residence at No 1 Queensway, #08-63, Queensway Tower, Singapore.
  • Doing Without Complicity

    Doing Without Complicity

    Doing without complicity Article (Published Version) Sullivan, G R (2012) Doing without complicity. Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law (2). pp. 199-231. ISSN 2047-0452 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46737/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk JOURNAL OF COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL LAW EDITOR JAMES RICHARDSON Q.C., LL.B., LL.M., DIP. CRIM. of Gray’s Inn, and the Inner Temple, Barrister EDITORIAL BOARD ANDREW ASHWORTH C.B.E., Q.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.
  • Public Prosecutor V Lim Ah Seng [2007]

    Public Prosecutor V Lim Ah Seng [2007]

    Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Seng [2007] SGHC 40 Case Number : CC 18/2006 Decision Date : 26 March 2007 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Sundaresh Menon JC Counsel Name(s) : Edwin San and Jason Chan (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the Attorney- General's Chambers; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (Harry Elias Partnership) for the accused Parties : Public Prosecutor — Lim Ah Seng Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles – Accused strangling wife during fight – Accused victim of repeated physical and psychological abuse from wife – Accused pleading guilty to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Accused suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome – Appropriate sentence – Section 304(b) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) 26 March 2007 Judgment reserved Sundaresh Menon JC: 1 Every killing is utterly tragic; but this does not mean that every killer is to be punished in the same way. The law recognises this and it is reflected in the various defences available to a murder charge and in the highly differentiated scheme of sentencing prescribed for a range of offences from a mandatory death penalty for intentional killing to a maximum term of imprisonment of two years for causing death by rash or negligent acts. In the context of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the circumstances of each killing may be so varied that any attempt to prescribe the precise sentence in vacuo would be futile. Even with a growing body of case law that provides much useful guidance, sentencing calls for the sound exercise of judicial discretion, taking into account the specific factual complexion of each case, including the ambient circumstances of the offence and the offender.
  • Official Publication of the Law Society of Singapore | August 2016

    Official Publication of the Law Society of Singapore | August 2016

    Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | August 2016 Thio Shen Yi, Senior Counsel President The Law Society of Singapore A RoadMAP for Your Journey The 2016 Mass Call to the Bar will be held this month on 26 Modern psychology tells us employees are not motivated and 27 August over three sessions in the Supreme Court. by their compensation – that’s just a hygiene factor. Pay Over 520 practice trainees will be admitted to the roll of mustn’t be an issue in that it must be fair, and if there is a Advocates & Solicitors. differential with their peers, then ceteris paribus, it cannot be too significant. Along with the Chief Justice, the President of the Law Society has the opportunity to address the new cohort. I Instead, enduring motivation is thought to be driven by three had the privilege of being able to do so last year in 2015, elements, mastery, autonomy, and purpose. There’s some and will enjoy that same privilege this year. truth in this, even more so in the practice of law, where we are first and foremost, members of an honourable The occasion of speaking to new young lawyers always profession. gives me pause for thought. What can I say that will genuinely add value to their professional lives? Making Mastery: The challenge and opportunity to acquire true motherhood statements is as easy as it is pointless. They expertise. There is a real satisfaction in being, and becoming, are soon forgotten, even ignored, assuming that they are really good at something. Leading a cross-border deal heard in the first place.
  • 9789814677813

    9789814677813

    SUBHA THE BEST I COULDFor Review onlyNATIONAL BESTSELLER Subhas Anandan (1947–2015) was undoubtedly Singapore’s best-known S criminal lawyer. From taking on Singapore’s most infamous cases, such as those A of Anthony Ler, Took Leng How and Ah Long San, to espousing his views on NANDAN the mandatory death sentence and police entrapment, Subhas Anandan became the face of criminal defence in Singapore. But why did he choose to represent clients who were to all intents and purposes guilty? And were the criminals he represented the monsters they were made out to be? Part (auto) biography and part log of Singapore’s criminal history, The Best I Could is a candid, at times brutally honest rendition of the boy, the man, the lawyer and the mentor who would ultimately become the voice of Singapore’s underdogs and unwanted. The THE BES book is a journey through dusty jail cells, dramatic courtrooms and the minds of some of the most high-profile criminals to date. At the end of a sometimes emotional ride, underneath his signature public scowl is a heart that is truly made of gold. We are privileged to have him as a colleague and a mentor to our younger colleagues. “Even the most heinous — Tan Chong Huat, Managing Partner, KhattarWong (2009) offender deserves The Best I Could provides a good insight into the criminal mind. Subhas narrates some a proper trial.” of the island’s most heinous crimes and the criminals behind them. Some of the characters are as fascinating as the author himself, and Subhas shows there is some good in the worst of them.
  • ENHANCING “ACCESS to JUSTICE” a Very Good Morning Prof Simon

    ENHANCING “ACCESS to JUSTICE” a Very Good Morning Prof Simon

    KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE 2013 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (17 MAY 2013) ENHANCING “ACCESS TO JUSTICE” A very good morning Prof Simon Chesterman, Dean, NUS Faculty of Law Students, Friends, Ladies & Gentlemen Introduction 1. I am delighted to be here this morning to deliver the keynote address for the second Criminal Justice Conference. A Conference such as this is of particular significance as it serves as a vital platform to discuss some of the more pressing issues pertaining to the criminal justice process and the values that underpin it. Such discussions are both essential and important because, in many ways, the principles and ideals that underpin our criminal justice system also form the foundational ethical building blocks of our society. I accept the reality that each of our individual points of view are informed by our respective perspectives and experiences, and much like any debate informed by a multitude of equally well-reasoned and legitimate views, there is unlikely to be unanimity on the direction the law should be headed, or whether the ideas propounded by the various speakers in this Conference ought to inform the shape of the criminal justice system in the years to come. 2. Be that as it may, I am positive that most would agree with the basic proposition that we must all aim to further the goal of providing “access to justice”. Indeed, the intuitively unobjectionable nature of the proposition is not lost on the Conference organizers this year, who have dedicated the entire first day’s proceedings to this very topic.
  • Daniel Vijay S/O Katherasan and Others V Public Prosecutor

    Daniel Vijay S/O Katherasan and Others V Public Prosecutor

    Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 33 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2008 Decision Date : 03 September 2010 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; V K Rajah JA; Choo Han Teck J Counsel Name(s) : James Bahadur Masih (James Masih & Co) and Amarick Singh Gill (Amarick Gill & Co) for the first appellant; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the second appellant; Mohamed Muzammil bin Mohamed (Muzammil & Co) and Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan (Allagarsamy & Co) for the third appellant; S Jennifer Marie, David Khoo, Ng Yong Kiat Francis and Ong Luan Tze (Attorney- General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing [LawNet Editorial Note: This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in [2008] SGHC 120.] 3 September 2010 Judgment reserved. Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is an appeal by the first appellant, Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan (“Daniel”), and the second appellant, Christopher Samson s/o Anpalagan (“Christopher”), against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) convicting them of murder in Criminal Case No 16 of 2007 (see Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others [2008] SGHC 120 (“the GD”)). The third appellant, Nakamuthu Balakrishnan (alias Bala) (“Bala”), originally appealed as well against his conviction for murder, but subsequently decided not to proceed with his appeal (see [46]–[47] below). For convenience, we shall hereafter refer to the three appellants collectively as “the Appellants”.