What is going on with Kong Hee's lawyer then?

One thing that does puzzle me about the Kong Hee & CHC case is this: does Kong Hee really have such a totally crap lawyer (PAP MP Edwin Tong) who keeps giving him bad advice? Edwin Tong is hardly doing a good job in trying to save Kong Hee from a long jail sentence! If it is trial by media, Kong Hee would have been convicted a long time ago as Edwin Tong hasn't really convinced anyone that Kong Hee is anything but guilty. So what do you think is more likely:

A) He is utterly clueless. 

Is Edwin Tong possibly one of the worst lawyers in Singapore, who has been giving Kong Hee really bad advice and he has no idea what he is doing or what he is up against? Is he probably totally brainwashed by Kong Hee like all the other members of CHC? Does he actually have a workable strategy to win this case? Or will Kong Hee simply end up after the trial with a very long jail sentence and a huge legal bill?

B) He is actually very smart (but his hands are tied). 

Maybe Edwin Tong is actually a really good lawyer but Kong Hee is impossible to deal with and it is Kong Hee who is ignoring Tong's good advice. As Kong Hee's lawyer, he can only act upon his client's (really bad) advice. HenceTong has just got to the point where he knows that he is going to lose this case no matter what, he is just chalking up the hours, knowing that he can still make a lot of money even if Kong Hee goes to jail.

C) Somewhere in between A and B.

I don't believe that A is true despite the fact that Edwin Tong has said some incredibly stupid things in court so far - for example, when he compared Sun Ho to Beyonce and Shakira in court, trying to claim that her "expected earnings far exceed S$13m in bonds that Xtron has to redeem from CHC". Let's pause for a moment and allow me to address Edwin Tong directly. Dude, let's put the legal stuff aside. Let's put the financial explanation about round tripping aside for now as well. Dude, have you actually heard the songs China Wine and Mr Bill? If you have, then you would realize what a catastrophe Sun Ho's American career was and how there was no way Sun Ho's music could have made any money in America at all. Sun Ho's English songs have become the laughing stock of Singapore.

Is that what lawyers do - defend in indefensible, justify the unjustifiable? He could use all kinds of fancy legalese to dress up his defence case - but he made a fundamental flaw in trying to justify Sun Ho's music career when it is obvious to everyone from the media to the public to the judge that it was simply a ridiculously stupid statement to make in court. At best, Edwin Tong presented himself as an old man who knew absolutely nothing about pop culture and probably has no idea who Beyonce and Shakira were (and that is a best case scenario). At worst, Edwin Tong comes across as a lawyer who has no backbone and has been overruled by his utterly delusional client and knows that he is spouting rubbish that he really doesn't expect anyone in court to believe.

Both the former and the latter does his career as a lawyer no good whatsoever - and as for his career as an MP, well, I am not sure. In other countries, most voters would not want to vote for someone after he has been tainted by a case like that - but in Singapore, the PAP clearly have a core group of brainwashed supporters who will vote for any PAP candidate no matter how rubbish, so whilst he would have undoubtedly done his legal career some damage with this case, the jury is still out on the effect this may have on his political career in the context of Singapore.

I doubt this case will damage Tong's political career with the PAP.

Nonetheless, I do believe that there is a strong case for option B - let me speak as someone who works in PR & marketing in financial services. Some years back, I did some PR & marketing for a hedge fund and I was paid handsomely for my services. I helped developed their distribution networks in new markets and spoke to so many distributors enthusiastically about how great the fund managers were and how much their investors could make by investing in this fund. Did I actually invest my own money in the fund? No, I chose to invest in property instead. For me, the PR & marketing work was just a job I did for money - I didn't believe in the fund enough to put my own money in it, but didn't have a problem persuading others to invest their money in it. Am I a fraud then? Am I dishonest then?

No, I don't think so. Nothing I did was illegal, nor did I ever misrepresent the product in any way - the client was satisfied in the PR & marketing services I provided for him and never asked me to invest my own money in the fund before engaging my services. Thus by that token, is it hypocritical of me to demand that Edwin Tong must believe in Kong Hee's innocence before defending Kong Hee in court? After all, both Edwin Tong and I were called upon in our professional capacity to do a job: our personal conviction was not required. It's just a job, it's just another day in the office, it's what we do to earn money and it is all legal.

It's just a job we do to earn money. 

After all, even though we expect Edwin Tong to do everything he can to save Kong Hee from jail, we should not forget that Tong is paid by Kong Hee to represent him and Tong is obliged to act upon Kong Hee's instructions (not matter how ridiculous). Who holds the balance of power in this relationship - we may never know, but given some of the more ridiculous crap that Edwin Tong had spouted in court so far, one cannot help but suspect that Kong Hee is wearing the pants in this relationship.The alternative is that Edwin Tong actually believes in most of this crap he is spouting in court - and even I find it hard to believe that Tong is actually that stupid.

IMHO, the best thing for Kong Hee to do is to plead guilty and bargain for a more lenient sentence - that is the advice Tong should have given him, but clearly it is not something Kong Hee is willing to do. Surely Tong would have put that option to Kong Hee already. I could go further, but I have actually received a very good piece from one of my readers on the issue.  I have to thank my reader and friend Anyhowhantam for this next section which analyses Edwin Tong's role and the PAP connection further. Take it away my friend:

"I think too many people are linking the connection of Edwin Tong being a PAP and being KH's lawyer and coming out with conspiracy theories, in that KH will get off lightly because of this. If the prosecution's case is weak or the defense raises a reasonable doubt, he'll be acquitted. If the case is winnable he'll win or if the evidence is so stacked up against him, he'll lose, PAP lawyer or no. Mr Tong I think is better at litigation than as a criminal defense lawyer, but he's senior enough - you don't become a senior partner at Allen & Gledhill by being a mug. Moreover he was already there practising before being tapped to be an MP by the PAP. He didn't rise to such a high position just because he was an MP. Most people engage lawyers they know or heard off. I don't know if Mr Tong is/was a CHC member, but I think he's probably a friend of KH or someone close to him, and thus was asked to be their lawyer in this case. Personally I think Davinder Singh (former MP and LKY's lawyer) would have been a better choice, but maybe they wanted a Christian lawyer.

Thus far I think he's doing an okay job trying to distance KH from any illicit actions, or trying to paint him as doing what he thought best in raising the church profile - thru Crossover, and whatever financial wrongdoing alleged was nothing sinister, but just them being naive or making procedural mistakes not criminal. But we must also consider that Mr Tong must act (as far as possible) on his client's advice. So if KH says never mind, all the defendants and me are the same, don't try and push the blame to anyone of them, just fight the case on its merits based on what I have briefed you, Mr Tong must fight it that way.

Unless of course KH, told him do whatever it takes to get him off, in that case Mr Tong might go and pin the blame on somebody else. That said it won't be easy, because the other defendants all have very senior lawyers, and they would advise their clients to rebut these allegations and not take the fall for KH. In a trial such as this with so many co-accused there would definitely be some kind of agreement as to how each would present their defense, and not try to defer blame. The worse thing they could do, is each blaming the other, in the end, all might get convicted.

If KH and all the co-accused are getting along well, or if all of them are sympathetic to him, even to the extent of taking the fall, then he can adopt any defense to his benefit and not fear repercussions. But if 1 or more of them have burnt their bridges with him, then he's in serious trouble, because he'll be fighting 2 battles, one against the DPP and the other against them. Thus far it still seems united, the key question will come when the prosecution rests after making a prima facie case, and their individual defenses are called. Lose that and they will be staring at a lengthy jail term. The biggest danger to KH is that 1 or more of them make a deal with the DPP for a lesser charge or plead guilty in the hope of getting a lighter sentence (they can do at any time). Once that is done, their statement of facts (which they will have to agree upon pleading guilty) of what transpired, can and will used as evidence against KH. It's very hard to rebut the evidence of a co-accused who has pleaded guilty, since he's already convicted and jailed, there's no reason for him to lie.

Btw the DPP is Mavis Chionh, a very senior lawyer herself and a former District Judge. So both sides have heavyweights, and not what conspiracy theorists are saying, Mr Tong's PAP links will help KH over and above everything else. I'd like to highlight another thing. As already mentioned, Mr Tong is obliged to take KH's instructions and defend him in that manner. He may counsel against a certain course, but if KH insists he must comply or withdraw. And of course this being a multi accused case, his hands are tied in that he has to walk a tightrope and keep to any agreement with other counsel (if there was one). If there wasn't, he must be wary of going after another co-accused, whose lawyer would then throw back 'some bombshells' at KH. 

Now some may ask: why should a PAP MP take up this case - the short answer is why not? Everyone is entitled to a defense, even a multi-murderer like the Kovan cop killer. Every lawyer called to the Bar subscribes to that, of course some would turn down certain cases they might not feel comfortable with, but at the end of the day, if one can afford a lawyer, one will always get one. You can ask the court to assist if every lawyer you asked turned you down, the judge would direct the Law Society or some other body to provide one. In capital cases, you'll always be assigned one if you can't afford them. So why shouldn't Mr Tong take this case - it's a huge case, lots of exposure and most crucially a very handsome legal fee. I think virtually every criminal defense lawyer would jump to defend KH because of the huge fees involved. 

His personal feelings about CHC should be cast aside, he's there to defend not judge. He may disagree with the Crossover and KH/Sun Ho's lifestyles or their teachings (Mr Tong is a Catholic I just learnt) but that doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't defend them. His job is to merely raise the best possible defense as instructed by the clients. It's up to the judge to accept it or not.

Anyway the point I wanted to make in this further reply is; Mr Tong shouldn't care if he thinks KH is guilty, but he must not know it for certain. In other words, he cannot defend KH, if KH admitted his guilt to him. He might think KH could have done it, after looking through the evidence and statements, but still defend him because everyone is entitled to a defense. However a confession/admission by KH means he's obliged to advise him to plead guilty and then only mitigate, he can no longer defend him. Doing so is a very serious breach of legal ethics - and the punishment usually is disbarment. Why? Because a defense lawyer (and the prosecutor) are officers of the court. Their 1st duty is to the court and that duty is primarily determining the truth. Presuming or thinking someone is guilty is very different from knowing for sure. The former basically means it's not entirely clear, thinking/presuming is not a certainty and it's up to the court to decide one way or the other. The latter means certainty and you cannot defend further, doing so is being dishonest. 

That's also why all of them have individual lawyers, because if 1 lawyer represents 2 or more accused, and 1 of them pleads guilty, he cannot carry on defending the other. Because the former's guilty plea and statement can and may be used against the other accused represented. That would put the lawyer in a conflict of interest with the truth, because the 1st client is admitting that both he and the 2nd client are guilty. The lawyer would now be aware of his 2nd client's guilt and he cannot defend him further. I may not be 100% sure on whether my reasons hits it on the nail, but I'm 100% sure no lawyer can defend an accused who confesses his guilt to him and no lawyer can defend a 2nd co-accused after the 1st pleads guilty."

You may visit Anyhowhantam's blog here for more quality blogging. As usual, if you have any questions or comments on the issue, don't be shy - you know the drill. Please leave a comment below, thanks!