tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84765290095351057732024-02-19T08:02:42.721-08:00Singapore Democracy Singapore Democracy Singapore Democracy Singapore Democracy Singapore DemocracyDEMOCRACY FORUM FOR SINGAPOREUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-63275263572827133812008-06-13T23:12:00.000-07:002008-06-23T07:35:29.791-07:00LIES, DECEIT & BRUTALITY - HOW LEE KUAN YEW STOLE SINGAPORE'S DEMOCRACY FROM LIM CHIN SIONG AND THE PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIbLTCtwc0l16Rm-LV6XuOJmnV6gnT45QrL-Pesh28eWZoq7XhePZ_iYawziJ5GyJ_nrJ74EG-e9encxa1pV8ZKrvPwaTw7pUH0GKxuLvszqAoK8HlCqvu8XmyXicLoGZK77NlvMduQsb0/s1600-h/limchinsiong1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211584199640925442" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIbLTCtwc0l16Rm-LV6XuOJmnV6gnT45QrL-Pesh28eWZoq7XhePZ_iYawziJ5GyJ_nrJ74EG-e9encxa1pV8ZKrvPwaTw7pUH0GKxuLvszqAoK8HlCqvu8XmyXicLoGZK77NlvMduQsb0/s400/limchinsiong1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Siong</span> vs Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Kuan</span> Yew: The true and shocking history </strong><br /><br /><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Siong</span> was really Singapore's true leader and should have become Prime Minister in 1959 - it is ironic that Lee Kuan Yew once introduced Lim Chin Siong as "our future Prime Minister" - instead the dictator Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Kuan</span> Yew stole power away from <span style="color:#000000;">Chin Siong</span>, who was bullied and conspired against by Lee, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Lim</span> Yew Hock and the British authorities. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Siong</span> was a great populist, a champion of Singapore students and workers - a Singapore nationalist - the George Washington of Singapore who wanted freedom from British rule and Democracy for Singapore's people. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Declassified British documents reveal that he was not a communist as Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Kwan</span> Yew said he was, as is taught out of Lee's People's Action Party approved textbooks to Singapore school children.In a startling and revisionist essay, Dr Greg <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Poulgrain</span> of Griffiths University observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police could find no evidence to establish that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Lim</span> was a communist.<br /><br />The British and Singapore Chief Minister <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Lim</span> Yew Hock had deliberately provoked the students and unionists into riots at rallies that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Siong</span> was attending. Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Kuan</span> Yew later opportunistically used these incidents to persecute and imprison <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Lim</span> as a communist (after <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Lim</span> had formed his own political party because Lee had marginalized <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Lim</span> and his supporters in the PAP) and then banish him to England after first courting <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Lim</span> to be a co-founder of the People's Action Party because of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Lim's</span> immense popularity with the Singapore people.<br /><br />Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Peng</span> the leader of the Malaya Communist Party said that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Siong</span> never admitted he was a Communist Party member and that the Malaya Communist Party did not control <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Siong</span> and his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Barisan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Socialis</span> party as Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Kuan</span> Yew stated they did.<br /><br />While under detention and most likely torture (according to Amnesty International) in Singapore under Lee's rule he became depressed and tried to hang himself. He died of heart failure, a broken and disillusioned man in 1996. This is one of Singapore's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">sadest</span> stories. A movie could be made from this, although it would be banned in Singapore under the rule of the Lee family and the corrupt People's Action Party. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Kuan</span> Yew should be prosecuted for TREASON against Singapore for subverting the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Democractic</span> system put in place by the British and used by Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Kuan</span> Yew to come to power. Lee should then have to suffer the consequences as set out by current law for treason in Singapore.<br /><br />If the Attorney General of Singapore truly stood up for law he would act against Lee and his son who have turned Singapore into a dictatorship, the fact that the Attorney General does not prosecute Lee makes him guilty of not upholding the Democratic Constitution of Singapore.<br /><br />Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Kuan</span> Yew subverted a functional democratic system with a strong opposition that actually could win an election if:<br /><br />1) Gerrymandering of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">ridings</span> and vote counting irregularities (as has been claimed by many sources) were not practiced by Lee and the People's Action Party.<br /><br />2) The public was not threatened with withdrawal of financial support for their electoral riding as is done under the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">PAP's</span> rule<br /><br />3) Strong opposition leaders that made serious attempts to win a majority election for their party were not jailed and or bankrupted as Lee was not back in the 1950's when he came to power under the original British Parliamentary Democratic system.<br /><br />4) The Singapore Media was not owned and controlled by the Singapore People's Action Party majority government - essentially making the main Singapore media a branch of the People's Action Party.<br /><br />Any real democratic court in the world would rule that Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Kuan</span> Yew is a dictator that has demolished the original British Democratic system that was in place when he used it to attain power in 1959.<br /><br />Singapore Elections Act states:<br /><br />Undue influence<br />59. Every person who —<br /><br />(a) directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting at any election; or<br /><br />(b) by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of any elector or voter, or thereby compels, induces or prevails upon any elector or voter either to vote or refrain from voting at any election, shall be guilty of the offence of undue influence.<br /><br />Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Kuan</span> Yew and his Prime Minister Son Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Hsien</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Loong</span> are guilty of using Undue Influence in the Singapore Parliamentary Elections Act by threatening to withhold money to constituents who vote in an opposition politician and also by bankrupting and or imprisoning Singapore political leaders who make a serious attempt at winning a majority of seats from an election for members of Singapore's Parliament.<br /></strong><br /><br />Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Kuan</span> Yew on Singapore's Criminal Law Legislation:<br />"The basic difference in our approach springs from our traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual," Singapore's Senior Minister Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Kuan</span> Yew said in a speech.<br />"In criminal law legislation, our priority is the security and well being of law-abiding citizens rather than the rights of the criminal to be protected from incriminating evidence."<br /><br /><strong>By deceiving Singaporeans in order to gain political power Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Kuan</span> Yew has placed his own interests above those of the communities Democratic rights. This makes his statement about his Asian values outrageous!</strong><br /><br />At the recent court trial against Dr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Chee</span> Soon Juan, the judge and Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Kuan</span> Yew's lawyer forcefully attempted to stop the information about the declassified British documents on what really went on in Singapore politics in the 1950's and early 1960's, this article contains much of what Dr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Chee</span> tried to bring to light in Lee's corrupt court.<br /><br />What follows came mostly from www.singaporedemocrat.org , other information has also been added to it.<br /><br />http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlelimchinsionghistory_intro.html<br /><strong>Introduction</strong><br />08 Jul 07<br /><br />Schools teach Singapore children that Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Kuan</span> Yew heroically delivered Singapore from the evil clutches of the communists and gave us what we have today.<br /><br />Whether such an assertion is historically accurate or not, the Government seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. When filmmaker, Mr Martyn See, released <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Zahari's</span> 17 Years in which Mr Said <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Zahari</span> talked about his 17-year detention, the Government promptly banned it.<br /><br />It, it stated, "will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government."<br /><br />When <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Siong</span>, another of Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Kuan</span> Yew's prisoners, died in 1996, the PAP was equally anxious to make sure that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Lim's</span> portrayal as a revolutionary communist remained etched in the minds of the people.<br /><br />In response to a tribute that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">SDP</span> had written about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Lim</span>, the PAP through then MP Dr Ow Chin Hock, said that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Barisan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Sosialis</span> (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Socilaist</span> Front), of which <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">Lim</span> was its leader, fought the Government in 1966 "on the streets, according to the teachings of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution."<br /><br />It was a bald-faced lie. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">Lim</span> was already in prison under ISA detention in 1966 and could not have led his party in anything.<br /><br />This, it seems, was not the only untruth that the PAP has been telling us.<br /><br />For example, Dr Ow pointed out that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">Lim</span> was not fighting for a democratic Singapore (the cheek) but a communist one. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">Lim</span> would have turned Singapore into "Mao's China or Ho Chi <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">Minh's</span> Vietnam", the PAP insisted.<br /><br />Besides, it was the Internal Security Council (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">ISC</span>) under the command of the British and not the PAP Government, who ordered the arrest and detention of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_65">Lim</span> and colleagues.<br /><br />This was because there were only three PAP representatives on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_66">ISC</span> and they were "outnumbered" by the other four members on the Council, three British and one Malaysian.<br /><br />Nothing could be more untrue.<br /><br />Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified, reveal some jaw-dropping facts about Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_67">Kuan</span> Yew and how he came to power.<br /><br />Two history scholars studied these papers and presented their findings in the book Comet In Our Sky (available at Select Books at the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_68">Tanglin</span> Shopping Centre).<br /><br />The first is Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.<br /><br />The second is Greg <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_69">Poulgrain</span>, a professor at Griffiths University in Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20 years.<br /><br />This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_70">SDP</span> feature presents a summary of Dr Harper's and Dr <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_71">Poulgrain's</span> chapters. It contains some shocking archival material.<br /><br />It also attempts to answer questions like who were people like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_72">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_73">Siong</span> and Said <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_74">Zahari</span>? Did they really pose a security threat to the country? Were they communists hell-bent on undermining constitutional/democratic means of governance in Singapore? Was it really the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_75">ISC</span> that was responsible for their arrest and imprisonment? Most important, is the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_76">PAP's</span> version of history based on fact?<br /><br />Remember, this narration is not the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_77">SDP's</span> rendition of events past. It is a collective summary of the research done by two historians.<br /><br />To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper's and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_78">Poulgrain's</span> works, quotes from the historians' chapters are used liberally.<br /><br />Still, don't take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and read for yourself the real history of the PAP and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_79">Barisan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_80">Sosialis</span>.<br /><br />Why bother?<br /><br />But why is this important? Why should <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_81">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_82">Siong</span>, a man who died more than ten years ago and who led a party which is now defunct, be relevant to the world in which we now live?<br /><br />First, because those events are part of our history, and history defines who we are as a people and, more important, shapes the way we plan our future.<br /><br />The textbooks that the Ministry of Education writes for our kids are not history but rather fables, starring Mr Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_83">Kuan</span> Yew. We have a duty to teach our youths the truth.<br /><br />Also, what happened in the 1950s and 60s continue to be relevant because many of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_84">Lim's</span> colleagues are still alive and the sacrifices they made for the independence of Singapore have been all but erased. Their stories must be told and their honour restored.<br /><br />Third, and perhaps most important, not only is the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_85">PAP's</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_86">cloroxed</span> account used to mentally condition (brainwash, if you prefer) our children, it continues to be used as a weapon to intimidate and silence voices of dissent.<br /><br /><strong>If Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_87">Kuan</span> Yew can manipulate the security apparatus for his own political ends in the 1950s and 60 as you will note from Dr Harper's and Dr <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_88">Poulgrain's</span> revelations, what does that say about the present use of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_89">ISD</span> to detain other Singaporeans? </strong><br />More ominously, what if the PAP feels sufficiently threatened politically and resorts to concocting another conspiracy to detain without trial more Singaporeans and opposition politicians like it did to a group of professionals in 1987?<br /><br />Hard, historical facts are the greatest antidote to fear mongering by the state and to the use of national security as a bogey to suppress freedom and democracy.<br /><br />Knowledgeable citizens with a keen sense of history are the best protection against acts of repression in the future.<br /><br />So if you are a discerning Singaporean unwilling to let the authorities tell you what to think and how to think it, if you are one of those who don't want your mind raped, then introduce yourself to this four-part Special Feature and take part in the forum discussion.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Part I: Our man </strong><br />08 Jul 07 -<br />from - http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlelimchinsionghistory_part1.html<br /><br />"The men who led Singapore to self-government and independence were swift to produce an authorized version of their struggle…,” historian T N Harper observes, "it began with Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_90">Kuan</span> Yew's dramatic broadcasts as Prime Minister on Radio Malaya in 1961. The plot and the moral of this story are clear: by the political resolve and tactical acumen of its leaders, the fragile city-state weathers the perils of a volatile age and emerges into an era of stability and prosperity."<br /><br />However, much to the discomfort of the Minister Mentor who hitherto has had a relatively free reign in portraying "the period as one in which <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_91">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_92">Siong</span> and the left were outmanoeuvred by the tactically more astute Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_93">Kuan</span> Yew," Harper cautions that "authoritative new archival research sheds new light on the high politics of the period."<br /><br />In other words, Lee's bravado with which he presently speaks covers up much that took place during those years.<br /><br />In truth, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_94">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_95">Siong's</span> fate was sealed right from the very beginning by the power of the British colonialists – and not Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_96">Kuan's</span> political prowess. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_97">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_98">Siong</span> was really the George Washington of Singapore, the revolutionary Singapore nationalist that wanted freedom from the British rulers and Democracy for his people.Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_99">Kuan</span> Yew was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_100">nowheres</span> in site at those public rallies because he did not want power for the people, he wanted it for himself and would go onto lure <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_101">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_102">Siong</span> into his clutches so as to ride on his popularity. Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_103">Kuan</span> Yew is a clever and cunning <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_104">sociopathic</span> power monger that has proven that he has no conscience about destroying anyone who stands in his way. The British are to be blamed for letting their sociopath come to power and in the end they lost Singapore anyways.<br /><br />At that time British authorities were already devising ways on how to stop <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_105">Lim's</span> ascent in Singapore's politics. Southeast Asia historian, Greg <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_106">Poulgrain</span>, writes that "In the Public Record Office in London are some of the observations and stratagems pursued by both the Colonial and Foreign Office – revealed now more than thirty years after the events – on how to deal with this rising star, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_107">Lim</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_108">Siong</span> Chin."<br /><br />With Singaporeans becoming more educated and the advent of the Internet, events surrounding the heroics of Lee and his PAP during the period of independence and merger with Malaya "no longer looks so <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_109">unilinear</span> and uncontested."<br /><br />The emergence of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_110">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_111">Siong</span><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZZ-sUULl3Imdd1LLXzX1_TVRUvyVB3j4d2xXxzPiI6AV57oKrvAxhM2rwbeay1CBpjoVixhUiaLiLqf5HsOzY_I4ZgKBvlOl9tpkcgdGURlSF8JZumHq1bEbr-7WEFPC1-hYVPJsU9Tjk/s1600-h/limcs1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211584693486962306" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZZ-sUULl3Imdd1LLXzX1_TVRUvyVB3j4d2xXxzPiI6AV57oKrvAxhM2rwbeay1CBpjoVixhUiaLiLqf5HsOzY_I4ZgKBvlOl9tpkcgdGURlSF8JZumHq1bEbr-7WEFPC1-hYVPJsU9Tjk/s400/limcs1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Harper recounts the "meteoric" rise of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_112">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_113">Siong</span> as a student and trade union leader in the early 1950s who was at the heart of the anti-colonial politics that had erupted all over Asia following World War II.<br /><br />By unifying the labour movement and galvanizing the overwhelmingly Chinese-speaking electorate through his formidable oratorical skills (he once told his massive audience: "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_114">Saya</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_115">masuk</span> first gear, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_116">lu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_117">jangan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_118">gostan</span>!" – "When I go into the first gear, don't you go into reverse!"), <strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_119">Lim</span> captured the attention of the masses, and Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_120">Kuan</span> Yew's too. This led to an association between the two men and the subsequent formation of the PAP.</strong> The anglophile Lee (Harry, as he once wanted to be called as his father pushed him to learn the rules of the white man's world, he later went back to using his Chinese name when it became apparent that his power would no longer be coming from the British) saw the power of his younger Chinese-educated comrade.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1xM8WjUjE5OeWFz68oNK4wFyb-1b7FZbSH0zI-HcVX5XKJyw7c108sX-o8VhyphenhyphenmQMtQRxeCrnUUhW909TtzD4n5828bD80x7z2tSzZG906G-zzWPt-SPr2yYN6CGb2uHK8RhyphenhyphenwFsDBM3m/s1600-h/Lim-Lee+Handshake.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1xM8WjUjE5OeWFz68oNK4wFyb-1b7FZbSH0zI-HcVX5XKJyw7c108sX-o8VhyphenhyphenmQMtQRxeCrnUUhW909TtzD4n5828bD80x7z2tSzZG906G-zzWPt-SPr2yYN6CGb2uHK8RhyphenhyphenwFsDBM3m/s400/Lim-Lee+Handshake.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5213606872218202130" /></a> <strong>Lim Chin Siong meets the Devil who would later go onto torture him by imprisonment.</strong><br />As Chin Siong said, “The fact is that all of us were detained, without trial for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That, I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years, until such a time that you are willing to humiliate our own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture. It is worse than in Japanese time, when with a knife, they slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”<br /><br />From the above quote of Chin Siong you can see that what he meant is that after being locked away in a cell for years without trial, then it gets to the point that you will admit what the system wants you to admit in the hope that you can be set free. So he admitted back then that he was giving up politics for good and had repudiated "international communism" - he 'humiliated his own integrity' - meaning that he never was a communist to begin with and would not have given up politics if Lee Kuan Yew had not forced him to.<br /><br />He died a broken man, 23 days short of his 63rd birthday in 1996 and forgotten by Singaporeans today.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1ep8QvLVxpzyK9HhE8jqqZbJfiE6G-J3KNRLqODhpO_7HyQPLAPLi2AcFnxvDq03HzZlm_LYa1yNO0bpRSwHbmUuiu_Z6OVNLKIQ5h7W-7yaeTtz5UR9jUmI0o-5yGXR34KhC3oy3flUV/s1600-h/lim+rally.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211647375594778082" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1ep8QvLVxpzyK9HhE8jqqZbJfiE6G-J3KNRLqODhpO_7HyQPLAPLi2AcFnxvDq03HzZlm_LYa1yNO0bpRSwHbmUuiu_Z6OVNLKIQ5h7W-7yaeTtz5UR9jUmI0o-5yGXR34KhC3oy3flUV/s400/lim+rally.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIDoZsOwSFH0s43yde9r0aHZDV4GtlTWU7-f__DeKCxuq-eN2K7PtU_EGWkNTri7_scW-cUcQ_6oUOh9dhXka8OicDVQiRirnW9KIFRC8EbldzKO8lq_kMKTWrj2IFSUdLNWykVxRBGz-L/s1600-h/Lim+Chin+Siong+in+large+gathering.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIDoZsOwSFH0s43yde9r0aHZDV4GtlTWU7-f__DeKCxuq-eN2K7PtU_EGWkNTri7_scW-cUcQ_6oUOh9dhXka8OicDVQiRirnW9KIFRC8EbldzKO8lq_kMKTWrj2IFSUdLNWykVxRBGz-L/s400/Lim+Chin+Siong+in+large+gathering.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5213610709992151378" /></a><br />"Arthur S.W.Lim, the well-known eye surgeon, recounted another experience of the youthful charisma and the powerful impact of Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_121">Siong's</span> oratory of the period.<br /><strong>'There were 40, 000 people, each mesmerised by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_122">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_123">Siong's</span> oratory. "The British say you cannot stand on your own two feet", he jeered, "Show them how you can stand!" And 40, 000 people <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_124">leapt</span> up - shining with sweat, fists in the air - shouting, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_125">Merdeka</span>'..."</strong><br />- Tan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_126">Jing</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_127">Quee</span> - From the book: Comet In Our Sky.<br /><br />"My neighbour who was in her early 80's remembered <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_128">Lim</span> vividly. When I showed her the book, she immediately recognises him as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_129">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_130">Siong</span>. <strong>She was telling me about the crowd that turned up at his rally, how hundreds and thousands of people waited along the road for his release from the prison."</strong><br />"<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_131">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_132">Siong</span> would have been our Prime Minister if not for Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_133">Kuan</span> Yew, I should say. However, if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_134">Lim</span> were to become our PM instead of Lee, what will Singapore be? Is it going to be better or worse? Are we going to be more democratic as what we were deemed to be." Lee Lilian http://leelilian.blogspot.com/2007/09/lim-chin-siong-man-who-was-nearly-our_16.html<br /><br /><strong>Even within the PAP, "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_135">Lim</span> eclipsed Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_136">Kuan</span> Yew and other leaders in the popular following he commanded..."</strong><br />But in his memoirs, The Singapore Story, published in 1998 Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_137">Kuan</span> Yew condescendingly described <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_138">Lim</span> as "modest, humble and well-behaved, with a dedication to his cause that won my reluctant admiration and respect."<br /><br />The truth is that Lee didn't have much of a choice. <strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_139">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_140">Siong</span> was at the front, back and center of a political movement that commanded national attention. From all accounts, Lee would have been marginalized if his parasitic instincts had not been so acute.</strong><br />Popular as he was locally, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_141">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_142">Siong</span> did not confine his politics to within Singapore. Despite British efforts to isolate the island from anti-imperial movements that engulfed much of Empire, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_143">Lim</span> would draw inspiration from liberation movements elsewhere in Africa and Asia.<br /><br />His speeches in the early 1960s repeatedly made reference to events in the colonial world as well as to South Africa, Korea, and Turkey. This sense of internationalism had a "deep resonance" in Singapore.<br /><br /><strong>The colonial government countered by censoring imported reading material. "This," writes Harper, "would continue, even intensify, after self-government as the PAP government increasingly saw itself as pitted against what Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_144">Kuan</span> Yew was to term the ‘anti-colonialism' of global liberation movements."<br /><br />In other words, Lee was not the hero who led the fight for Singapore's freedom. This might come as a shock to some but as declassified documents reveal, it was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_145">Lim</span> Chin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_146">Siong</span> who insisted that Singaporeans' freedom and independence were not for compromise.</strong><br />It was also "what really caused the British authorities to consider [Lim] such a threat."<br /><br />The talks collapse…<br /><br />When David Marshall became the chief minister after his Labour Front won the elections in 1955, he organised a delegation to London the following year to negotiate independence from the British. Marshall included both Lim Chin Siong and Lee Kuan Yew in his team.<br /><br />The chief minister fought hard, some say too hard, to wrest power from the British in the internal affairs of Singapore. He opposed Britain's power to appoint the police chief who in turn had power over the Special Branch, as it was then known. It was the Special Branch that gave the authorities the power of detention without trial.<br /><br />The idea of retaining the power of internal security whilst granting self-government, Marshall accused the British, was like serving "Christmas pudding and arsenic sauce."<br /><br />Lim Chin Siong supported the chief minister on this and demanded a constitution that transferred power to the local government with only defence and foreign relations left in British hands.<br /><br />The British refused the demand and the talks collapsed. Marshall returned to Singapore frustrated and, amidst condemnation by Lee Kuan Yew, resigned as chief minister.<br /><br />...Lim Chin Siong is detained…<br /><br />Lim Yew Hock took over the position and led another visit to London the following year, which again included Lee Kuan Yew. But this time, Marshall and Lim Chin Siong were not part of the negotiating team.<br /><br /><strong>More accurately, Lim Chin Siong could not go because Lim Yew Hock, as chief minister, had placed him under arrest, ostensibly for instigating a riot.<br /><br />The episode began when Chief Minister Lim closed down a Chinese women's group and a musical association. A week later, he banned the Chinese Middle School Union which provoked further unhappiness with the locals.<br /><br />Undeterred he arrested Chinese student leaders and shut down more organizations and schools, including the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. Given the already tense situation between the Chinese-speaking people and the colonial authorities, this was a highly provocative act.<br /><br /><strong>At that time any Singaporean leader worth his salt could not have sat by idly. And so Lim Chin Siong came to the fore and spoke up for the students. The late Devan Nair, former Singapore president, joined in.</strong><br />A 12-day stay-in was organised at one of the schools and Lim Chin Siong was scheduled to speak at a nearby park one evening.<br /><br />It wasn't long before the police appeared and ringed the crowd. Suddenly a mob started throwing stones at the police who then charged with batons and tear-gas.<br /><br />Violence erupted and spread, with police stations being attacked and cars burned. By the end of the chaos 2,346 people were arrested and more than a dozen Singaporeans were killed.<br /><br />The blame was squarely pinned on Lim Chin Siong who was arrested.<br />But did Lim Chin Siong really cause the mayhem? Who was the "mob" that started attacking the police?<br /><br />At that time, Chief Minister Lim made no bones that the Lim Chin Siong was the front man for the communists who had started the violence. Lim was arrested by the Special Branch the following day. Lim vehemently denied this accusation and countered that the chief minister was a colonial stooge. As declassified documents now reveal, Lim Chin Siong was largely right.</strong><br /><br /><strong>Entitled Extract from a note of a meeting between Secretary of State and Singapore Chief Minister, 12 December 1956, the archival note recorded that it was Chief Minister Lim who "had provoked the riots and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong."<br /><br />Poulgrain even documents that full-scale military assistance was requested by prior arrangement. Singapore Governor, William Goode, acknowledged that the colonial government was not beyond employing the tactic of provoking a riot and then using the outcome to "achieve a desired political result."<br /><br />Indeed, Poulgrain noted that "[Public Record Office] documents show these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong's arrest." </strong><br /><br />A few weeks after Lim Chin Siong was behind bars, Lim Yew Hock visited London in December 1956 and was "warmly congratulated on the outcome by Alan Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies."<br /><br /><strong>And yet, in his memoirs, the Minister Mentor concludes that the Malayan Communist Party "in charge of Lim Chin Siong" were behind the whole affair and that Lim Yew Hock had purged Singapore of the communist ringleaders.</strong><br />…and the (Singapore Independence) talks in Britain were resurrected.<br /><br /><strong>Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng's testimony contradicts Lee Kuan Yew's assertion that the Malayan Communist Party was "in charge of Lim Chin Siong"...<br /></strong><br /><br />Harold Crouch: What sort of relationship did the people who became the Barisan Socialis in Singapore have with your people in southern Thailand at that time? Had there been any contact at all?<br /><br />Chin Peng: I think among them, there were some communists, there were some non communists, for example, Lee Siew Choh. We considered him as radical left.<br /><br />Anthony Short: Lim Chin Siong never had any contact with the Party in southern Thailand, did he?<br /><br />Chin Peng: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. <strong>Lim Chin Siong never admitted he was Communist Party member.</strong><br />Anthony Reid: Was the Barisan Socialis under the control of the CPM (Communist Party of Malaya)?<br /><br />Chin Peng: I don’t think we can control it from far away. It would depend on the man on the spot. They discussed among themselves and they coordinated their activities, not controlled from the Central. Take the case of the Singapore left wing, I don’t think they used the name of communists. They all regarded each other as left-wing figures, and then they discussed themselves, they coordinated their policy, and they decided.<br /><br />Chin & Hack (eds)., Dialogues with Chin Peng,<br />(Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2004), pp. 190 – 192.<br />Chin Peng was the head of the Communist Party of Malaya<br /><br />The above provides high level direct witness testimony that contradicts Lee Kuan Yew's assertion that: "The Malayan Communist Party in charge of Lim Chin Siong were behind the whole affair and that Lim Yew Hock had purged Singapore of the communist ringleaders."<br /><br /><strong>And so in the 1957 with Lim Chin Siong under detention, Lim Yew Hock led the delegation to London. But during the negotiations, it was Lee who "played a crucial role in sweeping away the earlier obstacles to agreement on internal security by resurrecting the proposal for an Internal Security Council (ISC)."<br /><br />The ISC was structured in a way that Britain and Malaya outweighed Singapore in the outfit. Why was the PAP supportive of such an arrangement?<br /><br />Historian Simon Ball said it best: "Lee wanted an elected government but not one that could be blamed for suppressing its own citizens."<br /><br />Even more damning was an archival "Top Secret" document that recorded: "Lee was confidentially said that he values the [Internal Security] Council as a potential ‘scape-goat' for unpopular measures he will wish to take against subversive activities."</strong>But the PAP continues the charade. Recall what Dr Ow Chin Hock wrote in his letter in 1996 about the arrest of Lim Chin Siong and other Barisan leaders: "The [ISC] had a British chairman, two British members, one Malaysian members and three Singaporean members. Together these four non-Singaporeans outnumbered the three Singaporeans on the council."<br /><br />In any event, unlike the one led by David Marshall, the negotiations in 1957 had little spine and gave away too much of Singaporeans' rights. As a result, both sides expeditiously reached an agreement for self-government, an agreement that Marshall called "tiga suku busok merdeka" (three-quarters rotten independence).<br /><br /><strong>But self-government was not the only subject being discussed. On the side, the British also wanted to introduce a clause that would bar ex-detainees, or subversives as the authorities called them, from standing for elections.<br /><br />Lee supported such a move – one that he would surely have known would cripple party comrade Lim Chin Siong's political career.<br /><br />In his memoirs, however, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: "I objected to [the introduction of the clause] saying that ‘the condition is disturbing both because it is a departure from the democratic practice and because there is no guarantee that the government in power will not use this procedure to prevent not only the communist but also democratic opponents of their policy from standing for elections'."<br /><br />A declassified British memo contradicts this: "Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a party with Lim Yew Hock in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the ‘subversives ban'."</strong>Perhaps this is not surprising as the British had noted that the "present leadership of the PAP is obsessed with the need to persuade the politically unsophisticated masses that the PAP is ‘on their side' and this involves demonstrating that the PAP is not a friend of the foreigner…"<br /><br /><strong>And this is perhaps the reason why Lee told Britain's Secretary of State, Alan Lennox-Boyd: "I will have to denounce [the clause]. You will have to take responsibility."</strong><br />London to the rescue…again<br /><br /><strong>A few months after Lee returned from the constitutional talks in London in March 1957, the PAP conducted elections of its executive council. Lim Chin Siong was still under detention and could not challenge Lee for the party's leadership.<br /><br />Lim's supporters, however, outnumbered Lee's rightwing faction and were elected to the executive council of the PAP. </strong>The British, through Lim Yew Hock who was by then "viewed as an altogether more compliant tool of the security apparatus," ordered the arrest of Lim Chin Siong's supporters, thereby securing Lee Kuan Yew's continued control of the party.<br /><br />Harper records, that despite Lee's protests against the crackdown of his party's leftwing, "not all were convinced of his innocence in the matter."<br /><br />In his 1998 memoirs, Lee Kuan Yew describes the fateful detention of the PAP's leftwing leaders by giving much prominence to Lim Yew Hock's decision while adroitly playing down the role of the British.<br /><br />After the talks in 1957, and given the stubbornness of Marshall and Lim in the 1956 talks, the British were persuaded that Lee was their man.<br /><br />Another set of talks were arranged in May 1958 and thereafter "there was an unspoken assumption that the PAP would govern after the 1959 elections."<br /><br />Writer T J S George repeated this observation that "repeated [British] intervention to ensure Lee Kuan Yew's political survival confirmed the feeling that Lee was by now Britain's chosen man for Singapore."<br /><br /><strong>Poulgrain recounted his own experience with British intelligence officers who were operating in Singapore in the early 1960s. One told him about a group of officers who were listening in on Lee Kuan Yew making a speech, railing against British imperialism.<br /><br />"The diatribe," Poulgrain writes, "brought only a jocular response from this group, one of whom openly commented that Lee was going a ‘bit over the top' considering that he was actually ‘working with us.'" </strong><br />The historian states plainly that Lee Kuan Yew personified the essential long-term interests of the United Kingdom in Singapore.<br /><br />Lee himself played up this position when he told the British government that the PAP was really London's "best ally."<br /><br /><strong>The British agreed. Secret documents now show that London's assessment was that Lim Chin Siong was increasingly bringing pressure to bear on Her Majesty's Government and "unless forestalled by Lee, may well be able to make the pressure decisive."<br /><br />Lee was grateful. He indicated that "he and his other reputed moderates in the PAP regard the continued presence of the British in Singapore as an assurance for themselves."<br /><br />From then on, despite the British concerns of Lee's "totalitarian streak that rides roughshod over all opposition or criticism", Lee's PAP and London "became locked closer together."</strong><br /><br /><br />The section below provides great detail of what happened within the PAP as the split between the right and left wing was happening, this section is taken from:<br /><br />http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/01/part-1-history-and-founding-of-pap-no.html<br /><br />(some of the original English grammar has been improved in this version)<br /><br /><strong>The Dilemma and Shrewdness of LKY</strong><br />In the run-up to 1959 elections, the PAP was in a dilemma. The Party was to be led into the elections by LKY and his Right Wong colleagues. But they needed the Left Wing leaders, who were in prison to attract the following of the masses.<br /><br />“It was at that point that Kuan Yew played his political cards superbly,” remembers Devan Nair. “It was masterly. He is politically very, very shrewd. He came to the jail and told us, look, I’m not gong to stand for elections unless I am satisfied that you are really committed to the ideal of a free, democratic, socialist and non-communist Malaya. And you are committed to the policies of the PAP. So Chin Siong, Woodhull, Fong and so on, gave verbal assurances. We knew that if the PAP didn’t form the next government we would continue to be in the jug (aka jail). But if the PAP did win, in 1959 and if PAP formed the next government, then we would be released and we could start our union work again.”<br /><br />“But Kuan Yew was too smart. He said, “No, put it down in writing.” And I (Devan Nair) told them, “Yes, if we are sincere, we ought to put it down in writing.” And the more important of which was The Ends and Means of Malayan Socialism”, said Devan. They all signed and committed themselves to the PAP. This enabled LKY to run for office on a platform which demanded their immediate release. The trade unions mobilized their mass muscles, putting the PAP into power by a landslide. The PAP formed the government with LKY as the Prime Minister.<br />Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues, released from jail amidst a flurry of doves, were tucked into obscurity as Political Secretaries in the Ministries.<br /><br />Cracks and Split in PAP<br />As the PAP government settled into power, the uneasy union between the Left and Right continued. The first sign of trouble was Devan Nair’s resignation from the Education Ministry. “I went to Kuan Yew and told him, “Look, I meant every word of The Ends and Means of Malayan Socialism. But I am afraid that my friends are not sincere. I don’t want to be caught in a situation where I’ll be fighting with my friends. So I want to leave. I’m resigning.” He went to St Andrew’s School where he became a teacher there instead.<br /><br />The next crack came when one of the most powerful members in PAP, Ong Eng Guan, the Minister of National Development and one of the three representatives on the Internal Security Council, published an attack on PAP. He accused the party leadership of being “undemocratic” and “dictatorial”. The Party responded by sacking him from the PAP and he was stripped of his seat in Hong Lim and all his other positions.<br /><br />He defiantly stood as an Independent in the Hong Lim by-elections and gave the PAP candidate, Jek Yuen Thong, a sound beating. Ong was fluent in dialect and Mandarin; a rarity amongst the English educated. Despite the PAP sending the charismatic Lim Chin Siong to speak at the mass rally at Hong Lim, Ong Eng Guan still won.<br /><br />This is not the end of the crisis for PAP. On June 1961, Lim Chin Siong wrote to Dr Toh, demanding the release of their Left Wing political colleagues. PAP could not agree to this with their prior agreements with the British. The beginning of the split between Left and Right was the Anson By-elections on July 1961. The Left demanded “internal democracy in the PAP” and the release of all political prisoners from detention. They were refused. The Left then threw their support to the rival candidate, David Marshall and he won.<br /><br />The final split came just a few days later in the Legislative Assembly. Thirteen Left Wing PAP Assemblymen abstained from voting with the party line. They were dismissed from the PAP. In August 1961, they formed a rival party, the Barisan Sosialis, led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. They took 35 branch committees, 19 of the 23 organizing secretaries and an estimated 80 percent of the membership. PAP under LKY was a mere shell, according to Dr Lee.<br /><br />The Last Breathe of Hope for PAP<br />The Singapore government was on the verged of being toppled. Every session, the opposition would motion of no confidence. But across the shores, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, watched the events and feared that Singapore was about to become a Communist State, a “second Cuba” and a danger to Malaya. Thus, this was the start of the intense and frantic, Battle for Merger.<br /><br />Barisan Sosialis held sway in Singapore but it knew that in a wider Malaysia they would be crushed. On the other hand, PAP needed Malaysia to break the Barisan’s hold on the Singapore Electorate. Thus, they enlisted Malayan Tengku and the British as allies, playing on their long standing fear of Communism.<br /><br />On July 1962, the Barisan Sosialis, led by David Marshall and Dr Lee Siew Choh, appealed against the merger in the United Nations in New York. The Merger Referendum, issued in 1962, was testimony to the murkiness of the Battle. It was deliberately ambiguous. It asked voters to choose what kind of merger they wanted, not whether indeed they wished for a merger. All spoilt votes were to be counted as votes in favour of merger. With this controversial tactic, the PAP won the Battle for Merger.<br /><br />Tengku then decided to clean out 'Communism' with “Operation Cold Store”. Hundreds of arrests were made and effectively decapitated the Left Wing Barisan Sosialis. A snap election was called, under the protection of the Malaysian Security Council,it produced a clear PAP victory. The Barisan, with most of their leaders in prison, garnered only 13 out of 51 seats. On September 1963, the PAP government had won its battle against the Left.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Part II: Get him!</strong><br /><br />In the next instalment read how an emboldened Lee Kuan Yew, with British backing, officially breaks with Lim Chin Siong. <br /><br />Preview:<br /><br /><strong>In his memoirs, Lee wrote that "Lim Chin Siong wanted to eliminate the Internal Security Council because he knew that…if it ordered the arrest and detention of the communist leaders, the Singapore government could not be held responsible and be stigmatized a colonial stooge."<br /><br />What the Minister Mentor did not say, but what Harper reveals in his chapter, is shockingly contradictory: "In mid-1961, therefore, to seek a way out, Lee suggested to the British that his government should order the release of all [the remaining] detainees, but then have that order countermanded in the ISC by Britain and Malaya."<br /><br />Such a craven act was even rebuffed by the British. The acting Commissioner, Philip Moore, stated that the British should not be "party to a device for deliberate misrepresentation of responsibility for continuing detentions in order to help the PAP government remain in power." (emphasis added)</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Part II: Get him!</strong><br />9 Jul 07<br /><br /><strong>After securing control of the PAP with the aid of the British, Lee Kuan Yew was still left with the problem of the detained Lim Chin Siong and his supporters. </strong><br /><br />This was a source of embarrassment for him. Seeing this, Lee announced that he would secure the release of his party comrades before taking office if the PAP won the elections in 1959.<br /><br />Behind the scenes, Lee negotiated and secured the private agreement of then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan that the prisoners would be released by promising that he (Lee) would "move against them if they departed from the party line."<br /><br />In return for promising to secure their release, Lee had secured Lim Chin Siong's and other detainees' pledges of allegiance to the party's manifesto.<br /><br />In truth the PAP and the British themselves were playing fast and loose with the law. The affair confirmed suspicions that all the backroom dealings was for political ends, not national security.<br /><br />In any event, Lee assigned Lim – who, if not for all the machinations, would have been the leader of the PAP and prime minister – the post of political secretary in the ministry of finance, the Siberia of politics at that time.<br /><br />Following their election victory in 1959, the PAP government released eight left wing leaders, including Lim Chin Siong on 4 June 1959, after ensuring that they were excluded from participation in the parliamentary elections to the central committee. Five were appointed as political secretaries, but with little real substantial power to initiate or influence polices. More significantly, none of them were made cadre members, which meant that they would never be in any position to challenge the leadership in future party elections. When Chin Siong was released, he was only 26 years old.<br /><br /><strong>Question: If Lim Chin Siong had really been the one who started the riots in 1956, shouldn't he have been charged and imprisoned, rather then released?</strong><br /><br />As blogger Thrasymachus said, from http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/07/history-of-pap-part-iv-lim-chin-siong_06.html , "Here, LKY played his political cards to perfection. Being the solicitor of the detainees, he was seen as the freer of the oppressed. Putting Chin Siong and the rest in political office, he could ride their popularity amongst the Chinese population without giving Chin Siong and the rest any power. In that, LKY would not be threatened by his popular rival, but not for long."<br /><br />In the meantime, detentions without trial continued under the new Lee government and the ISC continued to be used as a front for the PAP's acts.<br /><br />An indecent proposal<br /><br />Fed-up with Lee's autocratic style and the delay of releasing the remaining detainees, PAP MP and mayor Ong Eng Guan denounced the government for its dictatorial methods and moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly to abolish the ISC.<br /><br />Harper wrote that because of the secrecy under which the ISC operated "not all members of Lee's cabinet were aware that the Singapore government had not pressed for the releases since early 1960."<br /><br /><strong>In his memoirs, Lee wrote that "Lim Chin Siong wanted to eliminate the Internal Security Council because he knew that…if it ordered the arrest and detention of the communist leaders, the Singapore government could not be held responsible and be stigmatized a colonial stooge."<br /><br />What the Minister Mentor did not say, but what Harper reveals in his chapter, is shockingly contradictory: "In mid-1961, therefore, to seek a way out, Lee suggested to the British that his government should order the release of all [the remaining] detainees, but then have that order countermanded in the ISC by Britain and Malaya."<br /><br />Such a craven act was even rebuffed by the British. The acting Commissioner, Philip Moore, stated that the British should not be "party to a device for deliberate misrepresentation of responsibility for continuing detentions in order to help the PAP government remain in power." (emphasis added)</strong><br /><strong>Moore suggested that the best solution would be "to release all the detainees forthwith." Lee, however, "was unwilling to present the left with such a victory." </strong><br /><strong>In a most damning indictment, Moore said that Lee "has lived a lie about the detainees for too long, giving the Party the impression that he was pressing for their release while, in fact, agreeing in the ISC that they should remain in detention."<br /><br />And if one thought that Lee Kuan Yew could not sink any lower, he did. He turned to his saviours and warned that should he lose in an upcoming by-election, he would call for a general election, which he fully expected to lose.<br /><br />This was because he was facing defections in the Legislative Assembly on his refusal to release the remaining detainees. And should he lose the elections, he warned the colonial masters, David Marshall, Ong Eng Guan and Lim Chin Siong would form the next government.<br /><br />This, he calculated, would be so distasteful to the British that it would rally them to his side.<br /><br />He presented the scheme at a dinner with Commissioner Lord Selkirk, Philip Moore (Selkirk's deputy), and Goh Keng Swee: Lee would order the release of the prisoners, the British would stop it through the ISC, and he would then announce a referendum on merger with Malaya (the story behind merger is explained below).<br /><br />This would provoke opposition from his party mates as well as Lim's supporters whom he would then banish to Malaya.<br /><br />A 1961 memo between the then Commission in Singapore and the Colonial Office in London revealed that Lee calculated that this move "would force Lim Chin Siong to reveal his hand completely and resort to direct action, in which event the Singapore Government would relinquish power and allow the British or the Federation to take over Singapore."<br /><br />In short, Lee was willing to sacrifice the efforts to secure the independence of Singapore to achieve his own political ends!</strong>As it turned out, Selkirk wanted to have nothing to do with the "unsavoury" proposal.<br /><br />Merger – on one condition<br /><br />At about this time, Malaya's Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman revived the idea of a federation of Malaysia consisting of the Borneo territories (now Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei), Malaya (now peninsular Malaysia), and Singapore.<br /><br />In exchange for territorial concessions in Borneo, the Tunku as the head of the federation would allow Britain to maintain a strategic presence in Singapore.<br /><br />The proposal was put forward because the Tunku was having problems of his own with the left in Malaya. This was not helped by the strength of Lim Chin Siong's left in Singapore. Kuala Lumpur saw the necessity of crippling Lim's support and wanted Lee to be its hit-man.<br /><br />For the British, the idea of a Malaysian federation was an acceptable compromise because it allowed London to maintain influence in the region while relinquishing its colony which it was going to lose anyway given the irresistible anti-colonial sentiment fanning the globe at that time.<br /><br />As for Lee Kuan Yew, the idea was heaven sent. Harper documents that Lee saw the Tunku's concept of a "Malaysia" as crucial to his own political survival because of the growing strength of the left.<br /><br />The left's strength was amply demonstrated when Lee's rightwing faction lost two by-elections in quick succession – the first to Ong Eng Guan in April 1961 (Hong Lim) and the second three months later to David Marshall (Anson).<br /><br />Lee was rattled. Then PAP chairman, Toh Chin Chye, recalled: "He was quite shocked. He drew me aside after the results were announced and asked me what to do. I said, 'Hang on!'"<br /><br /><strong>Toh also revealed that Lee had written to him that "the trade unions, the Middle Road crowd wanted him to resign" and that they wanted him to replace Lee as the prime minister. </strong><br />Toh did not recommend Lee's resignation. But the reason he gave was that it "would divide the government and it would appear to the people of Singapore that we were being unsteady," hardly a ringing endorsement of Lee's leadership.<br /><br />These developments precipitated an open split between Lee and Lim Chin Siong. Lim's group suspected – correctly – that Lee was up to no good in his pursuit of merger with Malaysia and they openly called for the abolition of the ISC.<br /><br /><strong>In July 1961, legislative assemblymen, parliamentary/organising secretaries, and members of the PAP split from the party and formed the Barisan Sosialis. Lee's party was shaved to bare bones.<br /><br />At the time, Harper writes, "there was an immense political momentum, a sense that the future lay with the Barisan Sosialis."<br /><br />Even then, Lim Chin Siong never wavered in his commitment to governing Singapore in a democratic way when he wrote in a press statement that "any constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of freedom and democracy."</strong><br /><strong>This contrasts with the PAP's demonisation of Lim as a front for the communist out to destroy the democratic way. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Closing in on Lim</strong><br /><br />Meanwhile In Malaya the Tunku insisted that Lee re-arrest Lim Chin Siong before he would allow Singapore into the federation.<br /><br />One of the reasons was because if the detention was conducted after merger, the Kuala Lumpur government would be responsible for it and it would be seen as cracking down on the Chinese in Singapore, increasing communal tensions.<br /><br />As for Lee's part, he saw the detention of Lim as his trump card and wanted to secure the merger first before he moved against the Barisan leader; Abdul Rahman would have no incentive to proceed with merger once the threat of Lim was removed.<br /><br />But the Tunku was firm: No detention of Lim, no merger. Lee knew he had to act.<br /><br /><strong>And so a two-part plan was hatched to bait Lim and colleagues: "In the first phase, the Barisan would be harassed by the police and the government. This was designed to provoke it into unconstitutional action, which would initiate a second phase of detentions, restrictions and other actions to be sanctioned by the ISC."</strong><br /><br />Lim's opposition of allowing the British to retain powers of detention during the constitutional talks in 1956 rang truer than ever and Marshall's colourful description of "Christmas pudding and arsenic sauce" were beginning to sound very apt.<br /><br />The diabolical scheme was vehemently opposed by the British Commission in Singapore. Lord Selkirk told his superiors in London that "in fact I believe that both of them (Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew) wish to arrest the effective political opposition and blame us for doing so."<br /><br />In the months leading up to Lim's arrest, Selkirk wrote to his superiors in London again, imploring them not to cooperate with Lee:<br /><br /><strong>"Lee is probably very much attracted to the idea of destroying his political opponents. It should be remembered that there is behind all this a very personal aspect…he claims he wishes to put back in detention the very people who were released at his insistence – people who are intimate acquaintances, who have served in his government, and with whom there is a strong sense of political rivalry which transcends ideological differences."<br /><br />Contrast this to what Lee wrote in his memoirs in 1998: "Lim Chin Siong…knew that if he went beyond certain limits, [the ISC] would act…"<br /><br /><strong>Lim need not have gone "beyond certain limits" as declassified documents now reveal, Lee was determined to put him in prison, communist or not, limits or no.<br /><br />More shamefully, Lee will not admit that he was the one who had pushed for Lim's detention.<br /><br />Selkirk's deputy, Philip Moore, reviewed intelligence reports and concluded that there were no security reasons to detain Lim Chin Siong: "Lim is working very much on his own and that his primary objective is not the Communist millennium but to obtain control of the constitutional government of Singapore."</strong>But London was determined not to allow democratic scruples from getting in the way of its strategic presence in Southeast Asia. It acquiesced to Lee's plan.</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong</strong><br /><br />The next instalment will examine the treatment of Lim Chin Siong in Lee Kuan Yew's hands. More evidence of Lim's persecution.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong</strong><br />9 Jul 07<br /><br /><strong>In February 1963 the ISC, under the direction of Lee, ordered Operation Coldstore where 113 opposition leaders, trade unionists, journalists, and student leaders who supported the left were arrested. Top of the list was, of course, Lim Chin Siong.</strong><br /><br />Historian Matthew Jones recorded that the arrests "primarily reflected the imperative felt by the decision-makers in London to respond to the needs and demands of the nationalist elites."<br /><br />Not for the first time, the British had come to the rescue of Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br /><strong>Behind bars, torture and psychological abuse were meted out in liberal doses. Amnesty International documented much of this in a report in 1981.<br />The state of Lim Chin Siong under detention makes for sordid reading. According to (the late) Dennis Bloodworth, Lim came close to taking his own life while in detention. He had gone into depression. In 1965, when he was at the Singapore General Hospital Lim tried to hang himself from a pipe in the toilet. He was rescued just in time. After he recovered he was sent back to prison.</strong><br /><br />His view on detention without trial is very disturbing, showing that Lee Kuan Yew's methods of ruling are barbaric:<br /><br /><strong>“The fact is that all of us were detained, without trial for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That, I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years, until such a time that you are willing to humiliate our own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture. It is worse than in Japanese time, when with a knife, they slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”</strong><br /><br />Four years later after suffering in Lee's prison, he penned a letter to his former comrade-turned-arch-enemy and capitulated, saying that he had "finally come to the conclusion to give up politics for good" and repudiated the "international communist movement."<br /><br />Siong remained in jail and suffered severe depressions, until physically broken and mentally traumatized. After he announced his decision to quit politics and was exiled in London (in 28 July 1969), his physical health ruined and his political life destroyed, he married Wong Chui Wan in London, in 1970,they had two sons. He struggled earning a living doing odd jobs and would continue to suffer bouts of depression. He never recovered. In 1979, he decided to return to Singapore and stayed in Serangoon Gardens until his death in 5 February 1996.<br /><br /><strong>Even then, Lee banished Lim to London in 1969 and allowed him to return to Singapore only ten years later.What kind of treatment Lim received at the hands of his foes that turned him from a spirited and charismatic national leader who walked tall among his people into a forlorn political non-entity, Singaporeans can only imagine. For Lim is not talking, he passed away in February 1996, forever carrying his secrets with him to his grave..</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWUU9niMcrFbn65-uE7xnYGvqiOfohA0OK4cYt4ihVow3z-hGOALPlBTZK6xuywYJ9QP3Ixjjjw7uGlXxmFKOu5mWQf-9zvhLxHFE-RqcaK2Z3GT1EDdlbG8_R9VrjVInPH8Cx7icsevXW/s1600-h/limchinsiong3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211817413822497890" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWUU9niMcrFbn65-uE7xnYGvqiOfohA0OK4cYt4ihVow3z-hGOALPlBTZK6xuywYJ9QP3Ixjjjw7uGlXxmFKOu5mWQf-9zvhLxHFE-RqcaK2Z3GT1EDdlbG8_R9VrjVInPH8Cx7icsevXW/s400/limchinsiong3.jpg" border="0" /></a> <strong>Lim Chin Siong, right, selling fruits in Bayswater, London, 1970s. If he really was a communist why was he working in private enterprise selling fruits and vegetables, why didn't he go to China and join Mao Tse Tung?</strong><br /><br />It was not Britain's finest hour. Far from the honest-broker that everyone had expected Britain to be, the UK Government had actively engineered Lim's downfall and Lee Kuan Yew's capture of the prime ministership.<br /><br /><strong>As it is, the historic account is hardly a heroic tale of the PAP's courageous triumph over the Barisan, as official accounts would have us believe.<br />Instead, declassified documents now show that it was a sad tale of private dealings and cowardly machinations for the attainment of power. </strong><br /><br />At his funeral which overflowed with his former Barisan comrades and supporters, eulogies recounting Lim's selfless dedication to a free and democratic Singapore were read. As his casket was pushed into the furnace, a thunderous and defiant applause resounded.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Referendum: To merger or to merge?</strong><br /><br />After having fulfilled his promise to Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest Lim Chin Siong before merger, Lee set his sights on taking Singapore into Malaysia. He called for a referendum to obtain the people's mandate for the move, a decision that Britain and the Tunku objected to.<br /><br />A referendum was hardly necessary as Lim and other Barisan leaders were behind bars. One suspects that a vote was needed to give the PAP the mandate to move in this direction.<br /><br />Indeed Lee, with not little false bravado, wrote in his memoirs: "I remained determined that there should be referendum."<br /><br />Democratic? Hardly. Instead of asking Singaporeans to vote for ‘yes' or ‘no' to merger, Lee proposed a ballot that allowed the people to vote only for merger under three options:<br /><br />Do you want merger?<br />A. in accordance with the white paper, or<br />B. on the basis of Singapore as a constituent state of the Federation of Malaya, or<br />C. on terms no less favourable than those given to the three Borneo territories?<br /><br />And so after the referendum in September 1962, Singapore moved one step closer to becoming a part of an independent Malaysia.<br /><br />Regrettable but necessary?<br /><br /><strong>Lee Kuan Yew, would have us believe as he wrote in his memoirs, that the use of detention without trial was "most regrettable but, from my personal knowledge of the communists, absolutely necessary."<br /><br />Harper dismisses this argument: "It was…inadmissible to argue, as Lee Kuan Yew did, that the exercise of these powers was ‘regrettable', but dictated by historical necessity."<br /><br />The truth is that "through this adversity…the Barisan Sosialis still adhered to constitutional tactics."<br /><br />Indeed, in the entire campaign to cripple the opposition, Lee Kuan Yew and his rightwing PAP faction has repeatedly resorted to using desperate measures of detention without trial, brazenly accusing his opponents of being a front for the communists.</strong><br /><br />Harper makes it even more explicit:<br /><br /><strong>"After 1959, Lee Kuan Yew had urged the necessity of defeating the radical left through open democratic argument, whilst trying to provoke them into extra-legal action. The left, however, had not been deflected from constitutional struggle. Therefore, from mid-1962 at least, Lee concluded that this confrontation could only be resolved by resort to special powers that lay beyond the democratic process. This merely exposed the extent to which the crisis, as the British argued, a political one, and not a security one."</strong><br /><br />The last chapter<br /><br />Lim Chin Siong's fight for Singapore may have come to a close, but another one is just beginning – the fight for history to be written the way it should be.<br /><br />Declassified secret papers are beginning to provide a glimpse into what really took place during the 1950s and 60s, especially in the behind-the-scenes dealings.<br /><br />Beginning with Comet In Our Sky more will be revealed. But as Harper tells us "many files remain closed and many files that have been released have had key documents ‘retained' by the original government department." These include key documents on Lim Chin Siong's detention in Operation Coldstore in 1963.<br /><br />As the real story emerges, the Singapore Democrats will play our part to urge this process along – in cyberspace – thus ensuring that the memory of Lim Chin Siong and what he and his Barisan colleagues did for Singapore will forever remain with us.<br /><br /><strong>End of a Great Singaporean</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3258/1229/1600/lcs005.0.jpg"></a><br /><strong>This is crucial as our past is still our present. Lim had argued that arbitrary powers of detention without trial, in whoever's hands be they white or yellow, will continue to make Singapore unfree and our struggle for independence elusive.<br /><br />"The people ask for fundamental democratic rights," he argued, "but what have they got? They have only got freedom of firecrackers after seven o'clock in the evening. The people ask for bread and they have been given stones instead."<br /><br />More than half a century later, can any Singaporeans say with hand on heart that Lim Chin Siong was not right? </strong><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz8FR3GgWVbW3rijE2BoXeZheEWvG6ctu71piD3BLYQS-67tzWt5hrrQiGlwD7X-D1noRm7LzOvGNRpM-IDjcuNG5YGRR4VNOGJN4ZH-MH4nlg4ji7u2XrNatIAniTgI0T_jKHx41OEM0z/s1600-h/limchinsiong4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211599959125733778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz8FR3GgWVbW3rijE2BoXeZheEWvG6ctu71piD3BLYQS-67tzWt5hrrQiGlwD7X-D1noRm7LzOvGNRpM-IDjcuNG5YGRR4VNOGJN4ZH-MH4nlg4ji7u2XrNatIAniTgI0T_jKHx41OEM0z/s400/limchinsiong4.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Chin Siong - Malaysia 1995 - a few months before he died.</strong> At his funeral his children were surprised at government officials showing up to pay tribute, which shows that Chin Siong never talked to his children about his fame and adornment from the Singaporean people when he was a young man. Once Lee Kuan Yew's thugs got hold of him for years in prison, they obviously 'demolished' (a term Lee likes to use in referrence to his treatment of any challengers to his power) his essense, destroyed his spirit - no doubt through similar methods that lawyer Gopalan Nair experienced in June 2008 when he was put into Lee's prison where he had to sleep with a bare light on 24 hrs, on a hard cold floor (no bed) and no blanket, leading to shivering and on top of this, Chin Siong would have had to endure psychologically abusive interrogation and maybe even physical beatings - the end result was that for the rest of his life he was afraid to even talk to his own children about how great he had once been. Sad, very sad.<br /><br />For another very good article on Lim Chin Siong also see: http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/07/history-of-pap-part-iv-lim-chin-siong_06.html<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Comet in our Sky: Lim Chin Siong in History</strong><br />Editor: Tan Jing Quee & Jomo K. S.<br />Publisher: Selangor Darul Ehsan (Malaysia)<br />170 pp. B&W photos.<br />Paperback<br />ISBN: 983-9602-14-4<br />Available: Select BooksThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it<br /><br /><br />This is a compilation of several efforts to critically understand and appreciate the significant role and legacy of the late Lim Chin Siong in the political history of Singapore. He was undoubtedly the most prominent left wing leader in Singapore in the 1950's and 60's. Academics and close political friends in Malaysia and Singapore attempt to give a balanced and objective account of Lim's contribution to post-war history in Singapore and Malaysia.<br /><br />Comet in our Sky brings together a collection of twelve essays, poems and memorials offering a multi-faceted view of the life and times of the late Lim Chin Siong, Singapore's former trade unionist and socialist parliamentarian whose political career was first curtailed and then cut short by arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA).<br /><br /><br /><strong>Book Review by Francis Seow: Comet In Our Sky: Lim Chin Siong<br /><br />Important Book with a Tale to Tell</strong>Book Review:<br />by Cheah Boon Kheng<br />The New Straits Times (Malaysia)<br />21 Jul 01<br /><br />Lim Chin Siong, the vanquished other hero of Singapore's political history. A man who stayed true to his cause and an architect of our struggle against colonialism. In his honour, KS Jomo and Tan Jing Quee have edited a book which is a collection of essays, poems and speeches in a tribute to a great leader who never got true recognition in our history books. History will be re-written for you cannot keep the truth from surfacing forever. Read this review and buy the book, we believe only in Malaysia. But we will try Borders and tell you the results.<br /><br />Lim Chin Siong - our other hero In place of a full-length biography, these separate individual accounts and memoirs from Britain, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore represent a composite story of Lim's life and politics, especially when he was a young rising star in Singapore's political firmament in the 1950's and 1960's.<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew, who had founded the People's Action Party with Lim Chin Siong, introduced him to David Marshall, then Singapore's Chief Minister, as "our future Prime Minister" in 1955. Lim's bright career however, was abruptly destroyed before he could realise its full potential.<br /><br />It was during his third imprisonment, says his friend Dr M.K. Rajakumar, that Lim was "destroyed, both psychologically and politically". He had a nervous breakdown, became depressed and suicidal. In 1969, in this state of depression, he was released from detention after announcing that he would quit politics.<br /><br />He was allowed to leave for exile in London, and did not return to Singapore again until 1979. He died of a heart attack in 1996 at the age of 62.<br /><br />Essays by Lim's close friends, especially Tan Jing Quee and Dr M.K. Rajakumar, add an intimate touch and tell an inspiring story of his rapid climb to popularity and as undisputed leader of Chinese workers, trade unions and Chinese middle school students in the 1950s.<br /><br />He is described as a slim, youthful figure, selfless, dedicated, with a handsome boyish face whose oratory as a speaker in Hokkien among the Chinese masses was legendary.<br /><br />In his political memoir The Singapore Story, Lee offered ungrudging praise to Lim's "hypnotic" oratory: "...a ringing voice that flowed beautifully in his native Hokkien. The girls adored him, especially those in the trade unions. Once he got going after a cold start at the first two meetings, there was tremendous applause every time he spoke. By the end of the campaign, Lim Chin Siong was seen as a charismatic figure and a person to be reckoned with in Singapore politics and, what was of more immediate concern, within the PAP."<br /><br />In 1955 Lim had been elected as Singapore's youngest parliamentarian. However, a year later, after widespread riots involving industrial workers and Chinese school students, he was arrested and imprisoned on charges of being one of the leaders of the "communist united front" alleged to have been behind the riots.<br /><br />Lim's own reputation was a further casualty to the riots' mayhem and bloodshed, and he was detained without trial. He denied charges that he was a communist, charges which remain unsubstantiated.<br /><br /><strong>In a startling and revisionist essay, Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffiths University observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police could find no evidence to establish that Lim was a communist. </strong><br />Poulgrain claims it was actually Singapore's then Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, who had deliberately "provoked" the bus and other industrial workers and Chinese middle students to riot in 1956 in order to have Lim Chin Siong arrested.<br /><br />Lim Yew Hock's own admission to responsibility for the riot appears in an official report to the British Government which Poulgrain found in the Colonial Office records in London which are now open to researchers.<br /><br />"Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a party with Lim Yew Hock," adds Poulgrain, "in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the subversives ban in making it illegal for former political detainees to stand for election."<br /><br />In 1959, while Lim was in prison, the PAP won the general elections under which Lee became Prime Minister, and Singapore was granted self-government by the British in all matters except for internal security, defence and external affairs.<br /><br />Although Lim and other leftist political detainees were released from prison, their co-operation and alliance with Lee ended in 1961 due to disagreements over policies and strategies.<br /><br />Until then the media presented the PAP as a leftwing party, indicating the pervasive and dominant influence of Lim's faction within and outside the party. Their rivalry was intense and ideological. Lee finally resorted to arrests to remove Lim and his faction.<br /><br />When Lim and other political detainees such as Fong Swee Suan and S. Woodhull were released, they were appointed Political Secretaries. But the honeymoon was soon over.<br /><br />The PAP split in 1961 saw Lim taking away with him almost the entire PAP branches and personnel to form and lead a new party, the Barisan Socialis (Socialist Front).<br /><br />Not long after this, the Barisan campaigned to oppose the formation of Malaysia which involved Singapore's merger with Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya on the grounds that Lee Kuan Yew had not sought more favourable terms for Singapore.<br /><br />The Malaysia plan, mooted by Malaya's then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, was endorsed by the British Government which had agreed to relinquish its rule of the other three territories.<br /><br />Fearing the increasing communist influence said to be behind the Barisan, Lee and the Tunku put pressure on the British authorities to arrest Lim and other leftists in Singapore for their opposition to Malaysia. On Feb 2, 1961 the police, under Operation Cold Store, detained over 100 people, including Lim.<br /><br />In another essay British historian Dr T.N. Harper discloses that these arrests were initially opposed by top officials in the British Commission in Singapore during meetings of the tripartite Internal Security Council with representatives from the governments of Singapore, Malaya and Britain.<br /><br />The British Commissioner in Singapore, the Earl of Selkirk, and his deputy, Philip Moore, had argued that such arrests would not only be undemocratic and unfair, but also failed to take into account that Lim and his party had been engaged in constitutional struggle.<br /><br />The Commissioner's arguments for democracy and fair play were quite extraordinary and out of line with London's official thinking, but were eventually rejected by superior officials in London, especially the British Secretary of State.<br /><br />The mood at the time of Lim's arrest during Operation Cold Store has been likened to "white terror", vividly described in a dedicatory poem by Tan Jing Quee, a former trade unionist who is now a lawyer and who himself was later detained on charges of being involved in communist united front activities:<br /><br />On the second day of February thunder raged through frightened streets lightning blighted all lamps<br /><br />In essays by other close friends, especially those by Dr M.K. Rajakumar, A. Samad Ismail, A. Mahadeva, Dr Lim Hock Siew and Said Zahari, details of Lim's personal health, suffering, character and political past are brought to light, especially his kind, friendly, charming and charismatic qualities.<br /><br />To most Singaporeans, their memory of Lim is that of a broken man, a rising star that burnt out. But Tan Jing Quee recalls that Lim "pulled himself out of the depths of despair. Unknown to many people, he made a remarkable recovery."<br /><br />One cannot help but be moved by Lim Chin Siong's tragic story in Comet in Our Sky, where he appears as Singapore's alternative hero to Lee Kuan Yew.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-82142607004619602492008-06-12T20:36:00.000-07:002008-06-19T09:17:59.192-07:00Singapore: Democracy or Dictatorship?Modern Singapore<br /><br /><p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/Downtownspore.JPG/800px-Downtownspore.JPG"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/Downtownspore.JPG/800px-Downtownspore.JPG" border="0" /></a><br />Mid 20th Century Singapore as the British left it<br /><a href="http://www.singas.co.uk/sits/Image1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.singas.co.uk/sits/Image1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>Singapore as it was Mid 20th Century</strong> (lower picture) - already a developed economy, the greatest port of South Asia by 1900, dominating the sea routes to India and Australiasia, one of the crown jewels in the British Empire until the mid 20th Century. Founded in 1819 by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles of the East India Company, it was by the 1900’s being used by some 50 shipping lines. Situated at the foot of the Malay peninsula, it was the outlet to the world for the thriving Malayan rubber and tin industries.The bulk of its population was made up of Chinese immigrants, a few of whom had amassed great fortunes, many men had come to work temporarily, leaving their families behind.<br /><br />The British Empire was expanding in Malaya chiefly for economic reasons. The growth of the motor-car industry in the 1900’s meant a rapidly rising demand for Malaya’s main commercial crop, rubber - the world’s largest supplier. British planters carved new rubber estates out of the jungle. Manning the estates was an agreeable, profitable activity for the planters, and to work the plantations, a vast labour force of Chinese and Indians was imported. (The Malayans on the whole preferred to work their own land rather than enter paid employment.)<br />Malaya (as it was known then) and Singapore became a hodge-podge of peoples: Hindu gongs and Chinese fire crackers sounded, and the smells of Indian curry and Chinese roast pork mingled.<br />Information from -http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenanderson/histempsequel/page19.html<br /><br />"Singapore also became a regional center for the distribution of European manufactured goods. After World War I, when the British established a naval base on the island, Singapore became a key element of the British Commonwealth of Nations military defense east of India, thus adding the naval support industry to the island's economy."<br /><br />"In the period immediately after World War II, Singapore faced enormous problems, including labor and social unrest, a decaying, war-ravaged infrastructure, inadequate housing and community facilities, a slow economic growth rate, low wages, and high unemployment made worse by a rapidly expanding population. As late as 1959, the unemployment rate was estimated at 13.5 percent. The struggle for survival in the postwar period deeply affected the economic decision making of Singapore's first generation leaders." </p><p>In a forum on the American PBS network Lee Kuan Yew said that after the British Empire broke up after WWII all the countries went their own way in regards to shipping, so Singapore's once busy port was suffering (whether this was due to competition from other countries or a generally depressed market after WWII or both is another issue) and something had to be done to make Singapore a stronger economy again, that is all good but the issue of civil rights and real Democracy are important as well, what of Lee's road kill, his opponents since 1959, how well did their lives turn out? Lee Kuan Yew wants Singapore to be like western Europe's finest liberal countries from a cultural perspective, you cannot have a flourishing culture like those countries when you have political repression and injustice, it stiffles the whole mood of artistic expression and beauty. http://countrystudies.us/singapore/28.htm<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew came to power in 1959 using the Representative Parliamentary Democratic system the British had slowly agreed to put in place before Lee became a politician, and after another Singapore political party leader, Lim Yew Hock with Lee at his side, had negotiated independence for Singapore. Lim Chin Siong (see other article on this site about him) was a very popular leader that Lee originally courted but eventually jailed for questionable leftist charges and ruined Lim's career, most likely to get the serious competition for power out of the way, which has been Lee's way of operating since the beginning. Singapore would have become a more humanitarian society with real democracy if Lim Chin Siong had become its leader back then. Lim Chin Siong was a strong Singapore Nationalist, he was the George Washington of Singapore fighting against British rule.<br /><br />Lee and his top ministers then set Singapore on a path to a stronger economy, including inviting foreign corporations in to set up manufacturing of technology and embarking on a massive social housing program that allowed Singaporeans to own government built housing at affordable prices. Lee also began oppressing any serious opposition, including jailing and bankrupting them, thereby denying other Singaporeans the same democratic rights that originally led to Lee's power to represent Singaporeans in the Parliament.<br /><br />Lee and his government argue that they have managed the economy well since 1959, that Singaporeans are better educated and have better jobs now. Those past years during the cold war communist years made it easier for Singapore to compete, to be America's branch plant economy. Now with China, India and many other south east Asian countries competing it is more difficult for Singapore to compete.<br /><br />Whether the PAP's strategy of attracting bio technology, pharmacitical and financial industries will be enough to keep the Singapore economy strong remains to be seen, some critics such a Gopalan Nair argue these ideas have already failed. Information on Wikipedia seems to contradict Gopalan Nair and shows that Singapore's economy still had strong growth in 2007 with government projections for more growth in coming years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#cite_note-33<br /><br />Critics of the government complain that many Singaporeans are falling behind now, that poverty is increasing (elderly scrounging through garbage and sleeping on sidewalks) while the government has become greedier for themselves. They are not setting a good example, their multi-million dollar salaries are far greater than other countries politicians are paid, especially relative to the gross domestic product that they are managing as compared with countries like the USA, Britain, Germany, Japan etc. Being in government is different than running a private company, government is always there and ultimately they own everything, if a company goes bankrupt their holdings go back to the government, therefore there is less risk and pressure to be a government member than a private executive, that is why there has traditionally been greater compensation for private executives.<br /><br />Lee's People's Action Party has remained in power for half a century, and for all practical purposes killing Singapore's Democracy. Recently increasing minister's pay to millions of dollars per year, further distancing PAP members of parliament from most Singaporeans and making entering a level playing field impossible for Singaporeans wanting to enter into politics in opposition to the ruling party. Well paid sycophantic judges enforce the PAP's monopoly on power with the assistance of a compliant police and military. The original form of British Democracy is now degraded to an empty shell with no substance.<br /><br /><strong>We</strong> should honour Dr. Chee Soon Juan Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) www.yoursdp.org and his sister Chee Siok Chin for sacrificing their lives to the cause of true democracy.<br /><br />We should also honour the brave actions of Lawyer Gopalan Nair the arrested Singaporean and American lawyer who is the author of:<br />www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com<br /><br />These men and women and many other Singaporeans past and present are to be congratulated for their efforts towards a more just and democratic society in Singapore.<br /><br />Lee Kwan Yew has made the absurd accusation that Dr. Chee Soon Juan is "near psychotic". Any rational person can see and read on the internet that Dr. Chee is a very sane and decent person that has sacrificed his life by going up against the tyrant and despot Lee Kwan Yew. Perhaps Mr. Lee should be known as the Mental Minister since he is now claiming to be a qualified psychologist. If anyone is psychotic it is Mr. Lee who is so mentally deranged that he desperately clings to power, inventing a new title for himself 'mentor minister' so that Singapore's mafia boss never really steps aside.<br /><br />Lee Kwan Yew made the statement that if he and his government considered someone a real threat they would have bankrupted them long ago. This is the statement of a tyrant who openly admits that he will bankrupt any serious opposition to his reign of oppression, as he has done many times. He then continues to hold fake and rigged elections so as to pretend to be a legitimate ruler with support from the people.<br /><br />The early democracy that was granted to Singapore, (as its real founder Sir Stamford Raffle's homeland country, Great Britain, decided to give Singapore autonomy) was used by Lee Kwan Yew to come to power but he decided that he never wanted to lose that power and thereby put in place methods to make Singapore democracy a fraud.<br /><br />For real democracy to happen in Singapore the People's Action Party/Government must not own or control any of the Singapore press and must make sure that all constituencies have a full slate of candidates from the opposition parties during an election and have independent United Nations observers at all election booths and ballot counting stations.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-7846124384964665342008-06-12T20:34:00.000-07:002008-06-12T20:35:51.627-07:00Chee Soon Juan's Statement to High Court, SingaporeStatement of Chee Soon Juan submitted to the High Court, Singapore <br />at the Bankruptcy Petition Hearing on 10 February 2006 <br /><br />Background: Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore <br />Democratic Party, was sued in 2002 by former Singapore prime ministers <br />Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong for defamation. The courts awarded <br />the case to the plaintiffs and ordered Dr Chee to pay $500,000 in <br />damages. Messrs Lee and Goh then took legal action to declare Dr Chee <br />bankrupt. In response Dr Chee submitted this statement at the <br />bankruptcy hearing. <br /><br /><br />After much observation and having personally gone through the judicial <br />process, I cannot but come to the conclusion that my case has not <br />received the justice that it is entitled to; it has been crippled right <br />from the beginning. <br /><br /><br />First, I was denied the services of QCs when the case commenced in 2002 <br />because according to judge Tay Yong Kwang, the matter was not <br />"complex enough". This is in spite of the fact that I had made <br />known the problem that few Singaporean lawyers would act for me because <br />this involved politics. In this regard, it is instructive to note an AP <br />report said criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, was happy to represent <br />"thieves and even terror suspects - but no dissidents, please." <br /><br /><br />The fact that the plaintiffs, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong, had <br />engaged Senior Counsel, Mr Davinder Singh, who is seasoned in handling <br />PAP defamation lawsuits and the fact that I had no lawyer to argue my <br />case for me seemed to not bother the courts at all. The US-based <br />Lawyers Committee for Human Rights commented: <br /><br /><br />Neither at the hearing, on February 7 [2003], nor in the course of his <br />judgment, did Justice Rubin display the least concern that Dr. Chee was <br />unrepresented. The Lawyers Committee considers that this apparent lack <br />of concern, coupled with the considerable latitude extended to Mr. <br />Singh in his submissions to the Court, resulted in manifest unfairness <br />in the course of the hearing and, specifically, the denial to Dr. Chee <br />of a fair hearing that met the international norms to which we have <br />referred. <br /><br /><br />Second, the case was awarded to the plaintiffs through Summary <br />Judgment, which meant that I could not call witnesses and defend myself <br />in open court. Again, the Lawyers Committee wrote: <br /><br /><br />The Lawyers Committee considers that there appear to be triable issues <br />in this matter, such as whether or not the words spoken by Dr. Chee <br />were defamatory and whether there was pressure brought to bear on Dr. <br />Chee that should render his apology and admission void for duress. <br /><br /><br />In summary, not only did I not have legal representation but I also did <br />not get a trial. It is well-known that Singapore has detention without <br />trial. Now it seems that we also have defamation without trial. <br /><br /><br />To be sure my case is only the latest in several that have taken place <br />through the years. Mr J B Jeyaretnam, one who has suffered the most <br />under this legal tyranny, has had to endure much injustice. One case <br />which he had appealed with Mr Wong Hong Toy to the Privy Council of <br />London in 1988 will perhaps go down in judicial infamy. The Law Lords <br />then had concluded that both the defendants had "suffered a grievous <br />injustice" at the hands of the Singapore Judiciary and Law Society. <br /><br /><br />Another instance was the removal of former judge Mr Michael Khoo from <br />the bench after he had passed a lenient sentence on Mr Jeyaretnam. <br /><br /><br />Through the years Mr Jeyaretnam has been hounded and was finally made <br />bankrupt in 2001 which made him ineligible for the 2001 elections. He <br />looks set to also be disqualified for this coming elections. <br /><br /><br />Then there was the case of Mr Tang Liang Hong who likewise was sued for <br />defamation and made bankrupt in 1997. If ever there was any doubt as to <br />the partiality of Singapore's courts, this case and all its attendant <br />proceedings removed it. It involved a police report that Mr Tang had <br />made during the 1997 general elections about PAP leaders. Mr Lee Kuan <br />Yew then got hold of the report, distributed it to the media, and then <br />proceeded to sue Mr Tang for defamation. <br /><br /><br />The above have been but a small sample of instances showing the lack of <br />independence and fairness of our judicial system. This has prompted <br />international organizations to comment: <br /><br /><br />"Civil defamation suits are being misused by the Executive to <br />intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holding dissenting views." <br />- Amnesty International <br /><br /><br />"[Defamation lawsuits have] done little to overcome the courts' <br />reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country's <br />ruling People's Action Party." - International Commission of <br />Jurists <br /><br /><br /> "What emerges...is a government that has been willing to decimate <br />the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers <br />have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the <br />law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of <br />restraints on government action toward the individual. Singapore is not <br />a country in which individual rights have significant meaning." - <br />New York City Bar Association <br /><br /><br />Our own former solicitor-general, Mr. Francis Seow said, "the <br />judiciary...contort themselves into obscene positions to favour...the <br />government." <br /><br /><br />The US embassy in Singapore expressed concern over "the ruling <br />party's use of the court system to intimidate political opponents." <br /><br /><br />Stuart Littlemore, QC, reporting for the International Commission of <br /><br /><br />Jurists wrote: "The Singapore leadership has a long-standing record <br /><br /><br />of using the high court as a mechanism for silencing its opponents - <br />by suing them for statements that, in any comparable jurisdiction, <br />would be seen as part of a robust political debate inseparable from <br />democratic freedoms, and by being awarded such unconscionably high <br />damages and costs as to bankrupt the defendants, forcing them out of <br />parliament." <br /><br />More recently, Chief Justice Yong Pung How sued his former remisier, Mr <br />Boon Suan Ban, for defamation when Mr Boon allegedly harassed Mr Yong <br />over some financial matters. Mr Boon was subsequently arrested and <br />remanded at the Institute for Mental Health at the "pleasure of the <br />President." The papers pertaining to the case were then sealed. <br /><br /><br />In 2005, High Court Judge Mr V K Rajah ruled that a silent protest <br />staged by four activists calling for transparency and accountability <br />from the Singapore Government was "incendiary" and that such <br />protests would "improperly undermine both a hard-won national dignity <br />and a reputable international identity." This is in spite of the fact <br />that the Singapore Constitution clear states that only five or more <br />persons gathered in a public area constituted an illegal assembly. <br /><br /><br />The question of the independence of Singapore's judiciary is also the <br />subject of a dispute between two commercial companies that is taking <br />place presently in Ontario, Canada. The arguments of one party can be <br />found on: http://uy.http3.net/Corrupted_Singapore_Regime_Judiciary.pdf <br /><br /><br />Through the decades opposition politicians have been, and continue to <br />be, hounded, persecuted, and prosecuted by the PAP through the courts. <br />All this time no one in Singapore has dared to say anything. There <br />comes a time, however, when one must look deep into oneself and ask how <br />much more of the persecution one has to suffer in silence. Today I have <br />made the decision not to remain silent any more and tell you what you <br />don't want to hear: That the judiciary in Singapore is, sadly, not <br />independent especially when it comes to dealing with opposition <br />politicians. <br /><br /><br />I wish I didn't have to do this. I wish I could say that my <br />country's judicial system is independent and fair. But I can't <br />because that would be a lie. It would be a much easier decision for me, <br />and more importantly for my family, to walk away from this bankruptcy <br />hearing and accept the punishment that the court has meted out. But my <br />conscience dictates otherwise and I must take the path that in all <br />likelihood will lead to dire consequences. <br /><br /><br />However, making this statement is a decision that I have chosen and, <br />having made it, to accept the consequences that it brings. I hope to <br />make this statement a start to a campaign to pry the country's <br />judiciary from the clutches of the PAP Government. <br /><br /><br />I may or may not succeed in my endeavour, but I would rather live my <br />life having spoken and fought for the truth than to share it with <br />cowardice and deceit. In my little way, I would have stood up for <br />Singapore, my home too. <br /><br /><br />Chee Soon Juan <br />10 February 2006 <br /><br /><br />cc <br /><br /><br />Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mentor Minister <br />Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister <br />Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister <br />Mr Yong Pung How, Chief Justice <br />Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, President, Law Society <br />Mr J B Jeyaretnam <br />Mr Francis Seow <br />Mr Tang Liang Hong <br />Amnesty International <br />Human Rights Watch <br />Human Rights First <br />Asia Human Rights Commission <br />International Commission of Jurists <br />Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada <br />American Bar Association <br />New York City Bar Association <br />Indonesian Bar Association <br />India Bar Association <br />Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats <br />Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia <br />National Endowment for Democracy (NED) <br />International Republican Institute (IRI) <br />National Democratic Institute (NDI) <br />Kim Campbell, President (Club de Madrid) <br />Korea Democracy Foundation <br />Taiwan Foundation for Democracy <br />Forum Asia <br />Swedish International Liberal Centre <br />Olof Palme Centre <br />Jarl Hjalmarsson Foundation <br />World Movement for Democracy <br />Community for Democracies <br />George Soros Foundation <br />International Freedom for Exchange and Expression <br />Southeast Asia Press Alliance <br />Reporters Without Borders <br />Freedom House <br />Political and Economical Consultancy <br />Transparency International <br />Non-violent International <br />John McCain, Chairman (IRI) <br />Madeleine Albright , Chairman (NDI) <br />David Kilgour, MP (Canada) <br />Raynell Andreychuk, Senator (Canada) <br />Graham Watson, MEP, Leader (ELDR) <br />Martin Lee, QC <br />Stuart Littlemore, QC <br />David Wingfield, Council for Enernorth <br />US Embassy <br />German Embassy <br />Swedish Embassy <br />Belgium Embassy <br />French Embassy <br />Netherlands Embassy <br />Canadian High Commission <br />Australian High Commission <br />New Zealand High Commission <br />British High Commission <br />European Commission <br /><br /><br />http://csj.http3.net/CSJ_Bankruptcy_Press_Statement_2.pdfUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-31031052015201087882008-06-12T16:26:00.000-07:002008-06-22T09:41:49.028-07:00Lee Kuan Yew - Once Professed DemocracyBefore Lee Kuan Yew became Prime Minister and Leader of the ruling party he professed to believe in Democracy as can be seen in the quotes below. This shows that he is an unprincipled man, that once he had power all of his esteemed ideals and beliefs were thrown out the window or perhaps he never believed it in the first place and was just playing politics, telling lies. Once he had a taste of power there was no turning back from denying democratic and legal rights.<br /><br />The amazing thing about Lee is that he obviously does have a very high IQ, he can wax eloquently on just about any topic, to hear the man in a close up friendly interview he comes across as rational, sensitive and intelligent. If a viewer was unaware of Singapore's political, legal and prison system, Lee Kuan Yew would have you sold on his brand of paradise. <br /><br />Knowing that his main political opponents have been treated so harshly for decades - that they have been kept imprisoned without trial, bankrupted, tortured (according to Amnesty International)- knowing these things while listening to the wise old Mr. Lee leaves a disconnect; how can a man who seems so rational and wise also be capable of being the master of the Singapore gulags that have ruined many a good man, including Lim Chin Siong for example, for whom, as British declassified documents show, there was no evidence of Lim being a Communist as he was accused of being for years while being held in a Singapore prison, to the point of attempting suicide as the torture began to get to him. <br /><br />How can a man be so smart on the one hand and such a monster on the other hand? Lee has accused opposition leader Dr. Chee of being near psychotic for wanting to challenge Lee's near absolute power, but is it not a form of schizophrenic sociopathic behaviour to be a brute behind the scenes and the wise kindly old man in front of the video cameras? He seems to have a high intelligence quotient but is lacking in the emotional quotient department. Studies of sociopaths have shown that the part of the brain where empathy and compassion are, seems to be dead or mostly dead in sociopaths, the light is not working. Unfortunately for the world these kinds of people quite often get to the top of politics and have no problem inflicting suffering on others, sometimes to the point of murder or mass murder using their police and armed forces.<br /><br />"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955 <br /><br />If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955 <br /><br />"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."<br /><br />- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-66337665426391025442008-06-12T11:16:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:17:45.574-07:00Lee Kuan Yew rules Singapore through FearThursday, December 27, 2007<br />Lee Kuan Yew's rules Singapore through fear. <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Over the last 40 years of the Lee government of Singapore, his most effective tool for successfully governing has been fear. Today fear lies like a blanket over the entire island republic. In fact it is fear that keeps Lee Kuan Yew comfortably in power and which keeps the country plodding along.<br /><br />But the one thing that everyone within the island understands is this; Lee will run the country the way he wants. The peoples' duty is to accept what he decides without question. You have to live your life, the way he has decided for you.<br /><br />And Lee has been highly efficient in ensuring Singaporeans fear and obey his every command. This is how it is done. First, he unashamedly publicizes the fact that Singapore judiciary will break any law or regulation in order to punish any opponent.<br /><br />In other words, he deliberately wants everyone in Singapore to know that he will use the law as his tool to punish his opponents. That there is no longer the rule of law. Only his wishes matter. And when Singaporeans realize that they are helpless and without recourse to justice if Lee is angered; they realize it is impossible to criticize him, because criticism can only mean utter ruination.<br /><br />And to prove that he means what he says, he makes examples of his political opponents. He successfully sues, and bankrupts JB Jeyaretnam in the courts in circumstances where the entire population knows that Jeyaretnam did no wrong.<br /><br />All Jeyaretnam did was nothing more than any other politician in any other country would have done. That is, criticize the opponent. Nothing improper at all. But yet the Singapore courts punish him and bankrupt him.<br /><br />And the trials and the full details of the case, with photographs of Jeyaretnam, are published in the Singapore media which Lee controls. The signal is very successfully sent to the entire population. And that signal is this. Forget about the rule of law. It does not exist. Lee Kuan Yew is the boss. He orders. You obey.<br /><br />Another of Lee Kuan Yew's bitter lessons to the Singapore population. Dr. Chee Soon Juan. Dr. Chee had the audacity and temerity, in Lee's eyes, to criticize him. Dr. Chee should now be made an example. He is sued, million dollar damages are awarded in Lee Kuan Yew's courts and he is bankrupted. All this is reported in detail with pictures and verbatim reporting.<br /><br />It is reported that Dr. Chee is to be sacked from his job as a professor at the National University. His picture is prominently displayed in the press. He is condemned and abused by Lee. He is called a lair a cheat and a criminal. All this is prominently reported in the newspaper.<br /><br />Even the president of Singapore can be destroyed at will. President Devan Nair was called various names such as a drunk, a womanizer and a flirt; his picture published, spread all over the front pages, defamed and destroyed. The message here from Lee is that even the President of Singapore is not safe from destruction, if Lee so chooses.<br /><br />Michael Khoo was a former district judge in the Subordinate Courts. His crime was finding JB Jeyaretnam not guilty in one charge. Even though he had done what Lee wanted by convicting him in 2 other charges, Lee was still displeased. What temerity on the judge’s part to acquit on even one charge!<br /><br />Lee's punishment for the judge was demotion to the post of prosecutor. I understand that Khoo accepted this demotion, meant to be a punishment with great shame. I understand he has since left Singapore government service entirely. Lee's message in this case was this. It does not matter who you are. You may be a judge, but still, if you cross his line, he will punish you.<br /><br />The moral to remember in Lee's Singapore is this. Lee does not care what the people of Singapore or others may think of the integrity or the credibility of public institutions such as the administration of justice. He does not care if the people think the judges are corrupt as they are clearly shown to be. What is more important to him is that the people should be kept in check. And the best way to do it, as seen by his actions, is through fear. When the people are afraid of you, it is easy to rule them.<br /><br />And when they are afraid to criticize or question, it is no longer necessary to govern according to their wishes. Their views no longer matter. This way Lee can decide whatever he wants to do, and implement them the next day.<br />The people are of course permitted to offer their praises, appreciation for government’s policies. That is always welcome. But it is really not important; since one way or another, the government will do whatever they want. And if they wanted praises, since all the media belongs to them, they will make them up if necessary!<br /><br />You can see the effect of Lee's total disregard for the opinions Singaporeans, by speaking to them. Even by reading the news. For instance, the government may have decided to tear down 20 blocks of HDB flats in Toa Payoh because they are being upgraded. The residents of Toa Payoh by the way were never consulted on their views. Whether or not the residents of Toa Payoh objected or approved the demolition of their flats was totally irrelevant!<br /><br />The government built a new building near the padang, downtown Singapore which looked like the tropical fruit durian. It is a place where symphony orchestras were to play music. Grandiose plan. Several millions or billions of dollars to build. Singaporeans were not consulted on whether they wanted the durian building, or approved of such expenditure.<br /><br />Someone in Lee Kuan Yew's government or even Lee Kuan Yew himself must have decided that it was all right to go ahead and spend the money and have this building. Mind you all this is tax payers money. Today we have no idea on what happens in that building or even whether ordinary Singaporeans step within a mile of the place.<br /><br />Singapore is going to have casinos. The government decided that since their previous ideas of disk drives manufacturing and airports and biotech hubs are all failing, the only way to make money now is to welcome gamblers to Singapore. Singaporeans were never consulted. There was no referendum. In keeping with the PAP philosophy that Singaporeans did not matter, they decided on it and they are being built. At the cost of billions. Singapore taxpayer’s money. But the views of taxpayers are irrelevant.<br /><br />Recently Mr. Kee Kuan Yew decided he, his son and his collaborators and friends will receive $3 to $4 million each year. The taxpayers consent to this incredible salaries were irrelevant. They would, after all pay themselves this or any other amount. The people's approval did not matter at all.<br /><br />One can read in the local state controlled press daily that the government has decided on something new. Formula 1 racing is going to be held. New schools dedicated to sports like badminton will be held. Wrestling and rugby were for reasons unknown left out! Why, because the Singaporeans are not strong enough? We will never know the reasons.<br /><br />Should not the money be spent in a better way? Instead of sports schools, more general education schools and colleges since only 10 to 13 per cent of students in Singapore get tertiary education. Would not the money be much better spent in providing more students with tertiary education than in setting up sports colleges! Such a debate on this issue has not been held and will not be held. It is Singapore we are talking about. The views of the people do not matter. The ones with the brains are all, supposedly, Lee Kuan Yew and his friends. They will do the thinking. They will come up with the ideas. All you have to do is to obey comply and conform like an obedient child.<br /><br />This sad picture is Singapore. A country run by fear. A carrot for obedience. A stick for opposition. This is Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. Until today. But things appear changing.<br /><br />If I know this, so do the others in Singapore. They are aware they are living in fear. The young today are more educated, even if a large portion of them do not have tertiary education. Many of them have the Internet. Unlike in the past, when opposition to him in print surely meant utter ruination; today Lee finds it impossible to stop the criticism on the Internet.<br /><br />Many in Singapore are beginning to hear contrary views to that of Lee Kuan Yew. And as time goes on; many people are finally beginning to say they refuse to live in fear.<br /><br />This willingness to criticize Lee's repressive policies among the young and better educated is picking momentum and strength. During my visit to Singapore last month, I was pleasantly surprised to see more and more young people coming forward and becoming human rights activists for a better and more democratic Singapore. They are beginning to realize that Lee's threats to ruin people is slowly losing it's punch. People are being emboldened. Many have said, do or die, they will fight this system. Many are aware that only bullies use such fear tactics. And when you stand up to bullies, they turn into cowards.<br /><br />Slowly but surely Lee's threats are beginning to have less and less effect. The people are finally slowly but surely taken back their power from Lee who had stolen it.<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: gopalnair@us-immigrationlaw.comUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-36242264082854279172008-06-12T11:07:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:18:54.735-07:00Lee Kuan Yew and Adolf HitlerWednesday, January 30, 2008<br />Adolf Hitler and Lee Kuan Yew <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Today, the 3oth of January 2008, is the 75th anniversary of Adolf Hitler forming the government in Berlin with his appointment as Chancellor in the Reichstag, Berlin, 30th January 1933. So I thought of Lee Kuan Yew. Are there similarities?<br /><br />In 1933 when Hitler formed the government, Germany was under the yoke of the West. The Treaty of Versailles signed at the end of the First World War in 1918 humiliated the Germans. They were required to pay reparations to England, their navy was ordered reduced, air force curtailed, the Rhineland was off limits and the Reichmark, the Germany currency was not worth the paper it was printed of.<br /><br />For this defeated humiliated people came a Hitler who told them it was time to rise again. Time to be proud again. Time to throw up the unbearable yoke that was put over them by the victors Britain and France. And he told them he would do it.<br /><br />Although he did not win outright at the elections, he managed by skullduggery and violence to force President Hindenburg to swear him in as the Chancellor. And so began the Third Reich. And true enough, Hitler did manage to make Germany the strongest mightiest and economically strongest and most powerful European country from 1933 to 1939 and beyond. From shambles, Hitler managed to make Germany the most powerful country in Europe.<br /><br />And Lee Kuan Yew? In 1959, Singapore was nothing more than a backwater and a sea port. Unemployment was high, poverty was all around and people did not know which way to turn, or what was to come. But Lee Kuan Yew becoming Prime Minister in 1959 did turn the country around. From the sleepy shipping harbor that it was Lee Kuan Yew and his policies managed to turn it into what it is today, an international city.<br /><br />So the similarities and the abilities between the two are striking. From great adversity they managed to turn a difficult situation around. But, just as Hitler, Lee Kuan Yew will eventually fail. For Germany the failure was due to military defeat. For Singapore, it will be because the basis of his policies have lost their appeal in this modern age.<br /><br />In 1959, it was easy for Lee to tell the people to support his policies without complaint. It was a time when people were just trying to survive. With heavy unemployment, with poverty and little hope, the people of Singapore were prepared to pay any price, sacrifice their rights and liberties in return for a better life; in return for bread and butter.<br /><br />So for a long time, he forced every Singaporean into resettlement into HDB flats, he controlled the unions, he denied civil liberties, he kept wages low in order to compete with other low cost countries, he invited Western countries to set up assembly line factories with cheap labor from Singapore, he controlled the press with propaganda, he denied assemblies and protests. In other words he controlled people's lives for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is for economic development. The Singapore people who were predominantly poor allowed him to control their lives any way he wanted; as long as he managed to lift up their lives economically.<br /><br />But the problem now is different. Singaporeans have now reached a certain level of education. A certain level of sophistication. They are no longer the impoverished coolie of 1959. They cannot be expected to tolerate those restrictions imposed on them such as in 1959. But the problem is, Lee Kuan Yew feels he can still make Singaporeans obey his orders like before. And this is where he will fail.<br /><br />Singaporeans of today are not those of 1959. Today they expect a little more than just food on the table. They expect some liberties too. They expect a right to criticize the government. The right to speak. The right to assemble. The right to a free press. The right to live like Europeans, as they have the means to do so.<br /><br />Very soon I expect more and more Dr. Chee Soon Juans to appear in Singapore. As if one is not bad enough! You can see this happening already. And just as Hitler fell, having been defeated militarily, Lee Kuan Yew too will fall because there are too many Dr. Chee Soon Juans. Who refuse to roll over, just because Lee says so.<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: gopalnair@us-immigrationlaw.comUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-7268114185123360282008-06-12T10:51:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:52:28.694-07:00Singapore Laws that Need to be BrokenSunday, May 18, 2008<br />Singapore's laws that need to be broken <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Unless we agree that only just laws need to be obeyed and unjust laws ignored, there is no need for you to to take any notice of this blog post. But if you, like me, agree that just because laws are enacted by a tyrant, which are enacted not at all in the interests of Singaporeans; but only to ensure that tyrants remain in power; then I would say, like me, if faced with such unjust laws, it is not only one's right but one's bounden duty to break them; because if you did not, you are a coward.<br /><br />1. The five person protest law<br /><br />This law requires a permit for a gathering of 5 or more in public. This is a law in direct conflict with the Constitution. The constitution guarantees you freedom of assembly. Constitutional law states any other law or statute that is direct conflict with the constitution is illegal and should be struck unless compelling reasons can be shown. A peaceful protest can in no way raise any compelling interest to overcome the constitution. Therefore the law reacquiring permits for protests is clearly illegal. Break this law.<br /><br />2. Public speaking<br /><br />This law requires a permit to make a public speech. Same analysis as for above protest law being in direct violation of the constitutional provision guaranteeing free speech. Break this law.<br /><br />3. Gazetting government offices as being off limits to protesters<br /><br />Recently this government in order to stop any protests have come with a new gimmick, which is, declare all government offices as off limits by a method called gazetting. Plain and simple rubbish. No can do; if I had no English! Government offices are the very places where protesters would want to hold them, since they are the offending parties. This again is a clear restriction and limitation of your constitutional right to free speech and assembly. Break this law.<br /><br />4. Societies requiring registration<br /><br />Singapore laws require societies to be registered. Clearly this is a law to keep an eye and monitor all opposition political activities. This again is a clear violation of the speech and assembly clauses in the Constitution. Here again there is no compelling interest to have these laws in place except for keeping Singaporeans forever enslaved. No basis in law for this at all. Break this law.<br /><br />5. Films Act<br /><br />Political or in fact any film needs to be licenced. The height of misuse of the law that can ever be imagined. Not just obscene films, but just every single film requires censorship! Please go to the SDP website, http://www.yoursdp.org/ and see for yourself. Yesterday, the MDA and police entered a private viewing of a film "One nation under Lee", at Peninsula Hotel entered the premises and forcibly confiscated the film, thereby making a nuisance of themselves once again. No doubt those present did not want to waste any time with these goons and handed them the DVD. Immediately thereafter, of course, they pulled out another copy of it and watched the movie, no doubt!<br /><br />In fact you can watch it below at the link. It is ironical that each time the government behaves in such mind boggling logic that will defy even Humpty Dumpty himself, the exact reverse happens. In fact after they confiscated it, the entire country's interest has been aroused and 10 times more people around the world have now watched it. Is the government now planning further arrests for having watched a movie critical of Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br />Break this law.<br /><br />But please watch the movie, One Nation Under Lee by clicking the link below. A well made and highly instructive movie.<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br />Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br /><br />And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime. <br /><br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6643812652683746551&hl=en<br /><br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5079206342978505621&hl=en<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6by3jJwoTrQ<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6V7M6nXxKkUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-3860457687686202502008-06-12T10:46:00.001-07:002008-06-12T10:49:40.429-07:00A difficult time for Singapore aheadThursday, May 15, 2008<br />A difficult time for Singapore ahead <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Channelnewsasia , the Singapore state controlled news media reports on May 15, 2008 "Mrs Lee Kuan Yew in serious condition after brain damage". She suffered a massive blot clot in her brain which resulted in a weakness of her side and inability to speak, and still remains in hospital in a critical condition. It is understood she has a history of suffering strokes, the last one being in 2003. Medical science tells us that people in such a condition are bound to suffer recurrence in strokes and keeping her age of 87 in mind, the prognosis is not good for a permanent recovery, and usually death is not too far away. However much we may want her to make a full recovery, and we all, I am sure wish her well, we cannot avoid the reality of the medical condition in such cases. It is dire.<br /><br />These are worrying times for the country given it's unique circumstances. We have Lee Kuan Yew who practically runs the whole show, with everyone else doing nothing more than just taking his orders and dutifully carrying them out. They have lost their ability to think since the last 40 years of dictatorship with Lee alone doing all the thinking. As for his son whom he placed as Prime Minister, even among his own party members he does not appear to instill any confidence. He too as a dutiful boy has been obediently doing nothing more than just following his fathers orders. Most people would agree that if he is Prime Minister, it is in name only.<br /><br />With the father strutting around the island shouting orders and jailing anyone who dared to say otherwise, the country has managed to acheive a certain amount of stability over the years, thus attracting foreign investment and became a fairly prosperous country. The question is whether the country can go on, with the demise first of Lee Kuan Yew's wife, 87, who has now suffered a massive brain hemorrhage, with Lee Kuan Yew himself already 84 and not too long to go; will business go on a usual?<br /><br />If Singapore is to slip into a steady decline with the economy unravelling and disintegrating, the fault must lie with Lee Kuan Yew alone. He will be solely responsible for its demise.<br /><br />Having been at the helm of Singapore for the last 40 years, he knew or must have known that for any country to continue advancing, you need an educated questioning people who are committed to the country, whose views are sought out and encouraged, where leaders are encouraged to develop and where at any one time, there are a great number of people who have managed to acquire the experience and understanding of government; where change of government can seamlessly occur; something which he has never allowed to happen.<br /><br />In order to ensure that he and his family alone rule Singapore in perpetuity, he violently put down anyone who was not prepared to tow his line; regardless of how educated or how capable they were. This has caused disaffection and disinterest among the educated whose ideas and contributions did not conform to his; which meant that a great many capable people were lost as leaders to Singapore's nation building. They either went into obscurity or emigrated and left Singapore permanently.<br /><br />And this meant, the talent pool in Singapore is small; limited only to those who were prepared to to submit to his authority and obey his commands. These people, the civil servants, the Ministers and high ranking government officers, no doubt are highly educated and talented people but unfortunately useless as leaders; since in Singapore Lee's set up, they are not required to think independently; since all they do is to carry out orders, I mean Lee's orders in an very efficient manner. But for any country to remain a real country, you need leaders who can think and act independently, with an understanding of politics and government and the necessary experience. Unfortunately no one in Singapore has been allowed to fit this description. And the lack of such people mean the end of a nation. Singapore, you must remember does not have any natural resources.<br /><br />So is it possible that foreign companies are already making plans to repatriate their money and their personnel from the island? Has foreign investment already begun to transfer their funds to Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur or whichever country appears a more permanent and stable place? Are more Singaporean educated taking their sons and daughters and themselves to Australia? Is the stock market beginning to suffer losses at a steady rate?<br /><br />I do not have any firm evidence of any of this, but if I am to guess, with the wife of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in a critical condition in hospital, perhaps even dying, and with Lee Kuan Yew already 84 keeping in mind no one lives forever, and the son looked upon as a good schoolboy and nothing else, I must confess, I have to worry.<br /><br />And the blame lies entirely on Lee Kuan Yew, a man driven by greed and self interest; with none for his country.<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br />Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.comUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-19235572894707790162008-06-12T10:46:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:47:09.490-07:00Lee finds himself in a quandry! What to do with the stubborn Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his SDP members?Thursday, May 8, 2008<br />Lee finds himself in a quandry! What to do with the stubborn Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his SDP members? <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />On May 12, 13, and 14, 2008 Lee Kuan Yew and his son will embark yet again on their favorite practice to silence political dissent. On these dates, in the High Court, Dr. Chee and Chee Siok Chin will be told by Lee’s judge chosen for the dirty work; as to how many hundreds of thousand of dollars, they will have to pay the Lees in damages for defaming their character.<br /><br />If any foreigner unaccustomed to the unique Singapore legal system were to ask why I am able to predict with so much confidence as to the amount of damages; they should be told that one thing is certain in Singapore. If the Lee family were ever to sue anyone; firstly, they are bound to win and secondly, the damages awarded will be in the tune of at least hundreds of thousands of dollars; no less. This much I guarantee.<br /><br />But my question is this. Is all this punishment being meted out to his nemesis Dr. Chee producing the desired result? Since Lee's intention of using the courts to sue Dr. Chee is to silence him, is he in fact being silenced? Unfortunately for Lee Kuan Yew, the answer to this question so far has been in the negative. Dr. Chee is plain and simply refusing to be silenced. Not only that, with each defamation action defeat, his criticism of Lee, instead of mellowing and moderating, becomes instead more robust and even more critical.<br /><br />Not just these politically motivated lawsuits before his complaint judges but every attempt at harassment by the Lees fails to silence Dr. Chee and company. You will recall in the past any attempt at public protest was stopped immediately, the protestors arrested, hauled before Lee’s courts and promptly punished. Now on the other hand the tables have turned. At the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on May 1, 2008, there were no less than 15 protestors (a revision from the earlier 10 that I had mentioned). Although in blatant violation of the public protest law requiring a permit for 5 or more protestors, not a single policeman was anywhere in sight, let alone any arrests.<br /><br />Immediately after that, 2 days later, 7 protestors protested outside the SPH Building demanding more press freedom, holding a large banner to that effect. Again, surprisingly, not a single policeman or an arrest.<br /><br />Dr. Chee had undergone a trial in the Subordinate Courts, Judge Jasvinder Kaur presided, for making a political speech without a permit. Although the trial was over a long time ago, the Judge has until today failed to deliver a verdict! Has she been advised by Lee Kuan Yew not to impose any sentence since it is clear that Dr. Chee will not pay the fine and go to jail and this defiance, yet again, will turn out to be an embarrassment?<br /><br />We all know the vile character of common bullies. If you are afraid, they will bully you. If you stand up to them, they usually run away. Deep down they are in fact cowards.<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew shows the classic character of a common street bully. In the past in Singapore, his dirty tactics had always worked well for him. Each time he sued someone, the victim promptly apologized, paid up and was permanently silenced and removed from politics. You could say that his dirty tricks always paid off in the past. But not this time. Not with Dr. Chee and company.<br /><br />Lee has crossed the path of someone with the tenacity and determination he did not expect. Dr. Chee is refusing to do what was expected of him, which is, once sued, to promptly roll over, apologize and prostrate at Lee's feet. With Dr. Chee not willing to do that but instead fight back with all his strength, Lee Kuan Yew has finally met his match. And having met his match, he does what every common street bully does. He runs away. As can be seen by his unusual inaction in the face of Dr. Chee and his street protestors blatantly violating his unjust laws.<br /><br />So my message to Dr. Chee and Siok Chin is this. Singaporeans who understand these dirty tricks are clearly with you. You have their support. This is the time to ratchet up the resistance. This is the time to repeatedly show Lee that his illegal laws will not be respected.<br /><br />I hope Dr. Chee will arrange for repeated protests from now until and through the dates of May 12, 13 and 14 2008 outside the High Court with placards reading "We want justice". With flyers distribution at every street corner everyday.<br /><br />With the Internet used to full extent to increase awareness of the SDP activities. In other words, SDP pubic activism should be a non stop daily occurrence, challenging the Singapore Police to take action if they dare. SDP public activism should be before our faces everyday on the ground and displayed live on the Internet, daily. Without let up. Non stop defiance.<br /><br />It is my reckoning that the police have given up on Dr. Chee and the SDP. Finally Dr. Chee and company have shown that truth is mightier than repression.<br /><br />Dr. Chee should cast off now, to take advantage of the tide and the gentle wind comfortably blowing from starboard. Steady she goes! A tot of rum for helmsman!<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br />Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-1480109854899111552008-06-12T10:39:00.001-07:002008-06-12T10:39:52.058-07:00Singapore: The Ultimate Police StateMonday, May 19, 2008<br />Singapore. The ultimate police state. <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Below the surface of the glass towers, the skyscrapers, the Parliament, the elections and the speeches upon speeches by government officials swearing under oath that Singapore is a parliamentary democracy; below the outward trappings of democracy; truly it is the ultimate police state. There is no law, there is no justice, and men and women live each moment at the pleasure of Messrs Lee Kuan Yew and his son. This is indeed the bitter truth.<br /><br />You have seen the police totally ignoring the Constitution of Singapore by arresting and imprisoning peaceful protesters, peaceful public speakers, and confiscating films which are in no way objectionable except that it is critical of Lee and son. The Constitution allows criticism under the free speech clause. Yet all these rights are blatantly ignored with the police doing anything they want.<br /><br />After being arrested and charged it would have been good if at least the courts can protect you. Alas, that protection too is absent. In fact, not too recently when peaceful protesters challenged the disruption of their perfectly legal protest in court, the Judge VK Rajah made the astonishing statement that Singaporeans have no right to protest as this will undermine the respectability of government institutions!<br /><br />Singapore has, just as other countries the Criminal Procedure Code that sets out the practice and procedure for the police to follow. Warrants of arrests are needed for non seizable offenses and searches and seizures of private property generally requires a warrant signed by a judge. Warrantless arrests and seizures require the finding by the police of probable cause before they can do it. But to use a local colloquial phrase " The police anyhow suka suka catch anybody they want. So the police belong to your father izzit?"<br /><br />Today the police in Singapore can stop anyone anytime, take them in without rime or reason, by merely saying they suspect an offence, without more.<br /><br />I have been watching the police arresting SDP members and activists whenever they like, confiscating their property and taking them to jail whenever they like without any lawful cause. And what I am even more upset about is the willingness of Dr. Chee and his supporters to merely submit to authority, knowing that these laws are clearly unjust on its face.<br /><br />If Lee Kuan Yew is intent on abusing the law for political ends, he can do whatever he wants. But Dr. Chee and his friends, instead of meekly complying with these injustices, should put their foot down and refuse to budge. If arrested refuse to go. Lie down. No violence but lie down. Let them have to pull you away. Yesterday, the police and MDA illegally disrupted a private screening of an educational film and demanded it, to which the SDP complied and handed it to them. Why? Since you know the demand for the DVD is unjust why cooperate with the police? Why not refuse to give it?<br /><br />Ms. Padmamuthu, the Indian woman who appears in the videos below, an officer of the MDA claimed that she was complying with the law when she illegally confiscated the film from the SDP at their private showing yesterday. Her full image and actions and words are caught on video for all to see. My message to such officers is this. There are laws and unjust laws. Padmamuthu herself knows that her actions were clearly illegal in spite of the law which requires all films to be licenced. She and everyone else knows that the law is a political law intended for the punishment of political dissidents. To her I will say, please do not prostitute yourself by this injustice. Have some shame. Stop selling yourself wholesale to Lee Kuan Yew and his son.<br /><br />And the same message goes to all other civil servants and police officers. Today you are unable to hide. Once you abuse your position to please your political superiors, the next minute you will be on the Internet, on Youtube and the world will watch your face and the shameful deeds that belong to it. So watch out! Just as the world had seen how disgusting the actions of Padmamuthu was on the day she abused her position in confiscating the DVD from democracy activists.<br /><br />This is what I will say to this officer Ms. Padmamuthu of the MDA. Regardless of how long you remain in Singapore or in the Civil Service, one thing is certain. Your reputation has turned permanently into excrement. Padmamuthu should ask herself whether it has been worth it?<br /><br />Please see her shamful actions for yourself in the videos below. I for one will never forget he face. Take a good look at her face.<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1<br />Fremont, CA 94538, USA<br />Tel: 510 657 6107 <br />Fax: 510 657 6914<br />Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br />Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com<br /><br />And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.<br /><br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6643812652683746551&hl=en http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5079206342978505621&hl=en http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6by3jJwoTrQ<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6V7M6nXxKk <br />Posted by Gopalan Nair at 8:44 PMUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-61457904766132643842008-06-12T10:30:00.000-07:002008-11-03T04:07:24.998-08:00Gopalan Nair - Who He Is.Gopalan Nair<br />Gender: Male <br />Industry: Law <br />Occupation: Attorney at Law <br />Location: Fremont : California : United States <br />About Me<br />Determined to find the Truth. Born Singapore, educated Winstedt School 2 (next to Monks Hill in Newton, Singapore) Raffles Institution, National Service, some travel in Europe, then law studies England, return to Singapore, practiced for 10 years, active Workers Party member, stood elections 1988 and 1991 in Singapore, was harassed and persecuted by Lee Kuan Yew for my political beliefs, left for USA, obtained asylum and admitted California State Bar, practice law ever since in Fremont California near San Francisco. Relinquished Singapore citizenship 2005 because I was not prepared to permit Lee Kuan Yew to unjustly retain my CPF funds if I remained Singapore Citizen. On principle, the only correct thing for me to do was to give it up, for my CPF funds. I am an American Citizen as of 2005.<br /><br /><br />Lawyer Nair now accused of contempt of court <br /> <br /> <br />Sun, Nov 02, 2008<br />The Straits Times <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The Singapore Government is going to take former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair to court again. It is accusing him of contempt of court.<br /><br /><br />The move by the Attorney-General (A-G) comes less than two months after Nair, who is now an American citizen, was jailed for insulting a High Court judge.<br /><br />This time, the 58-year-old is alleged to have said, among other things, <strong>'that the courts were being abused for political ends'.</strong><br /><br /><br />Editor: Anyone with half a brain knows that Singapore courts are in fact used for political ends. Lee Kuan Yew is a first class asshole.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-10022154485553498032008-06-12T10:24:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:26:49.898-07:00Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court (in&out quickly)Thursday, May 29, 2008<br />Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />This is Gopalan Nair in Singapore today, May 29, 2008. I have been in Singapore since May 25, 2008, and staying now at Broadway Hotel, Room 708, 195 Serangoon Road, Singapore 218067.<br /><br />I am deliberately stating my identity and my present exact location for a definite purpose. On day 2 of the trial in Singapore, day before yesterday, in the Lee Kuan Yew and son verses Dr. Chee Soon Juan case, Lee senior had said in answer to a question by Dr. Chee, that if he, Lee Kuan Yew, knew the identity of bloggers in cyberspace who defamed him (defamation being used of course in the Singaporean sense), he will sue and bankrupt them.<br /><br />He had earlier sidestepped the question by saying, that he had difficulty suing critics of his in the Internet because their identities were not usually known. When pressed, he categorically and deliberately stated that he will sue if they made known their identities.<br /><br />Well, what you are going to read should be without question defamatory of Mr. Lee and his son, that is in the warped and hare brained Alice in Wonderland meaning of the word "defamation". It will be interesting to see if this Singapore strongman, Lee Kuan Yew and son, who strut around the small island of Singapore bullying everyone who so much as criticized, will sue me now for calling him nothing more than a small time street bully; since now, we have myself Gopalan Nair who has the temerity to identify himself and state his presence with full address in Singapore.<br /><br />Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, see here. I am now within the jurisdiction of your courts; I repeat, "the jurisdiction of your courts" because literally they are your courts, willing to commit any crime or injustice you will demand of them.<br /><br />During the last 3 days of the court hearing, up till yesterday, in the High Court, before your stooge of a judge, Belinda Ang in Court 4, you and your Prime Minister son conducted yourselves as expected, no better than cowards hiding behind the coat tails of your equally cowardly counsel doubling up as a PAP politician in court; who managed with the full co-operation of the said judge to ensure that you came to court merely for form, refusing to answer almost all questions that went directly to your integrity or rather the lack of it.<br /><br />After the end of the 3 days in court, it left no doubt in my mind that you and your son are indeed what international human rights organizations say you are, nothing more than tin pot tyrants who remain in power by abusing the courts to eliminate your political opponents. You are clearly corrupt, as is your government, because paying yourself $3.7 million is corruption pure and simple and in the end you have lost all credibility and moral authority to govern Singapore.<br /><br />The following transpired during the last 3 days in court. The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders. There was murder, the rule of law being the repeated victim.<br /><br />The issue in the said court was the determination of the quantum of damages payable by the innocent victim, Dr. Chee Soon Juan who had earlier been found liable by this judge for defamation of character of Mr. Lee and son, where the law was once again abused through the contrivance of a process known as summary proceedings, thereby disallowing Dr. Chee to produce any witnesses or to cross-examine those of Mr. Lee because there were none.<br /><br />The said 3 day of hearing before the court was nothing more than a mockery of justice; a charade, a make believe that appeared right out of the pages of Alice in Wonderland with Belinda Ang playing the role of the Queen of Hearts before the trial of the Mouse who stole the Tarts very well indeed. It almost appeared that she was going to dispense with all testimony and come straight to the verdict of guilty so as not to waste her valuable time!<br /><br />It would be fair to say, in fact an understatement, that in effect she disallowed Dr. Chee any effective cross examination of either the father Lee Kuan Yew or the son, as Mr. Singh, their counsel was almost having a workout like in a gym; standing up to object, and sitting down after almost each and every question that Dr. Chee put to his father and son clients. In fact Singh was popping up and down almost without let up during the several hours of the hearing so much so, that someone suggested to me that it would have been a good idea if he remained standing throughout the case to facilitate his expected objections at each and every question of Dr. Chee.<br /><br />If Dr. Chee did manage to ask even one question, it was because he went ahead and asked it despite the objection of both Mr. Singh and the judge because if he did not, he would not have been able to ask any questions at all!<br /><br />Dr. Chee has asked Lee's son how much he was being paid, that is $3.7 million, 6 times what George Bush is paid! Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks whether it is just for him to corruptly steal this amount of taxpayer's money while the poor in the 1 room flats starve without any financial assistance! Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks why the GIC and HDB function under a shroud of secrecy without any transparency, when the moneys in them is taxpayers money? Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks whether he knew that those who read the Internet overwhelmingly hated him as a tyrant and a bully and the only ones singing praises in his name are the Singapore state owned and controlled media? Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks whether the international community looks at him no better than a despot and a father's son? Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee had asked this Lee Kuan Yew's son why he said in the 2006 elections that " if there were more opposition candidates at elections, he will have to "fix" them and bribe his voters to win elections"? Question disallowed and the son shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />There were many more questions put to him just as the above questions, all very relevant, which, had they been answered, would have shown that he had no integrity or reputation whatsoever, and since integrity and reputation are the issues in deciding quantum of damages, Lee Kuan Yew's son should have been awarded no damages at all; that is provided we have an independent judiciary, which we have not.<br /><br />Any honest spectator in the court's gallery would have come away with one opinion alone, that is, this man is Prime Minister only because he happens to be the son of his father. If he really wanted to show that he was in fact in control, he could have easily told his lawyer to stop being the Jack in the Box and stop popping up and down with his objections and let him handle the questions. At each question, he was looking meekly at his counsel to see whether he has to answer it. If I could put it in a simple way, he was nothing more than a helpless boy.<br /><br />The following refer to Lee Kuan Yew's testimony or rather the lack of it.<br /><br />Chee asked him whether he came to power through unfair means in 1959, as shown by declassified British Colonial Office documents in London? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks about his throwing Lim Chin Siong, his political compatriot, in jail under the ISA in solitary confinement for several years in the 1960s and whether this was a sign of a man with a reputation and integrity? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks about the Operation Cold Store in the 1960s where he jails political opponents because he fears he might be overthrown? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks about Chia Thye Poh, Zaid Zakaharia and Lim Hock Siew, his political opponents whom he imprisons without cause for many many years? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Chee asks whether the only people who have a good opinion of him are his state owned and controlled Singapore press, whereas everyone else in Singapore as well as the entire list of respectable foreign organizations and countries including the entire European Union consider him as a thug and small time street bully? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.<br /><br />Other than the dubious Transparency International Kula Lumpur Chapter (not to be confused with Transparency International of Berlin Germany) he was asked whether anyone else considered him in high regard other than the local press which he controls? His answer was that PERC and a Swiss organization, both of whom cater for businessmen thought highly of him. But when asked whether highly respected Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Without Borders, Reporters without Borders, ILRW and several other international bodies considered him a crook; he had nothing to say, because as usual the Jack Rabbit Davinder Singh stood up once again to object and the judge obediently sustained the objection.<br /><br />Then Lee Kuan Yew went on to insult Dr. Chee with impunity, that he is a liar, a cheat a charlatan, a criminal and what not. Of course the judge permitted these insults, since after all Lee Kuan Yew and his son owned the courts and the judge as well.<br /><br />These court proceeding were nothing more than a sham, a charade and a mockery of justice. It was very clear that both father and son had no integrity or credibility whatsoever. They were ruling Singapore through fear and those who are able to leave the country leave it in droves, only to be replaced by Mandarin speaking immigrants from the Peoples Republic of China who speak no English at all.<br /><br />If there was one result of these proceedings it was this. Dr. Chee' impeccable reputation was vindicated. He came out of these proceedings truly as the statesman that he is, and he demolished these two petty thugs Lee and his son, perhaps not in this Singapore kangaroo court, but truly in the court of truth and conscience.<br /><br />And in fact despite the objection of Mr. Singh and Belinda Ang, Dr. Chee Soon Juan did manage to say to both father and son, that regardless of what the court decides, in the court of natural justice, in the court of truth and in the court of moral conscience, they had that day lost all moral authority to govern Singapore.<br /><br />I believe, not only me, but every single person who walked away from that courthouse yesterday came away with that same judgment.<br /><br />As the Lees know, I am a lawyer practicing in Fremont California and a member of the California Bar. My question to Lee Kuan Yew and his son is this. Are you going to stand by your threat and sue me for defamation as well? I am presently physically within your jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of your kangaroo courts. Are you going to going to send your process server to me with your writ of summons? Or are you, as expected, all talk and no action, when you meet those not afraid of you, just as how a petty street thug would behave?<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />Broadway Hotel,<br />Serangoon Road, Singaproe<br /><br />May 29, 2008 <br />Posted by Gopalan Nair at 10:23 AMUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-49879593124582522672008-06-12T10:18:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:23:39.442-07:00US Lawyer (former Singaporean Lawyer) Challenges LKYFriday, May 30, 2008<br />Lee Kuan Yew: If bloggers who defame me identify themselves, I will sue them! <br />Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />I am Gopalan Nair. Today is May 31, 2008 at 10.40am Singapore time. I am at present in Singapore at Broadway Hotel, Room 708, 195 Serangoon Road, Singapore, 218067. The hotel telephone number is is 62924661. My local SingTel telephone number is 83764236.<br /><br />In my last blog post, I had narrated the shameful spectacle of Lee Kuan Yew and his Prime Minister son abusing the legal system for their political ends through their lawyer Davinder Singh and a compliant judge, both compliant and suppliant to Lee Kuan Yew's demands to abuse the law, Belinda Ang, to punish his political opponents Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin.<br /><br />I repeat the threat that Lee Kuan Yew had made on day two of the show trial during the last 3 days in the High Court. When asked by Dr. Chee whether he will sue those who write on the Internet defamations against him, I mean defamations in the Singaporean sense, his definitive unequivocal answer was that he will sue them. There is no doubt in the Singaporean sense, I have defamed him and his Prime Minister son, not only in my last blog post but in almost all my blog posts since my blog's inception in December 2006.<br /><br />My posts have attracted great popular interest throughout Singapore and has been repeatedly and widely re-posted throughout the island in other blogs and political forums. A wide section and spectrum of Singaporeans have read them and interest in them increases daily. And as Lee Kuan Yew has himself said with both bravado and gusto, a lie has to be nailed because otherwise through dissemination people who matter, Singapore citizens, will begin to take it seriously.<br /><br />Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, you have called Dr. Chee a liar, a cheat, a scoundrel, a criminal and various other abusive epithets. Let me tell Mr. Lee Kuan Yew that these words that you have uttered apply to you and your son, not to Dr. Chee Soon Juan.<br /><br />Not only in my mind but in the minds of countless Singaporeans, Lee Kuan Yew and his Prime Minister son are men so weak that the only way they can stay in power is through fear and intimidation of their citizens through the abuse of legal process and other shameful means.<br /><br />Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, look here. I am now within your jurisdiction and that of your corrupt police and your corrupt judiciary who will do anything you want of them, however criminal and illegal.<br /><br />What are you going to do about it?<br /><br />Gopalan Nair<br />Broadway Hotel<br />Singapore<br />May 31, 2008 <br />Posted by Gopalan Nair at 7:40 PMUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8476529009535105773.post-73855060175941075142008-06-11T19:56:00.000-07:002008-06-12T16:57:33.149-07:00Dr. Chee Soon Juan vs. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore Mentor Minister)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhmyG2nADh7_Ep8UzbMB46aC5pqyDHD76G-0bdK5jXNFjyPNXNga-4o7mwd4cvc3yJopR1DQa-tkGgYRox6B9swBkRVf8woZ4LbZob4DfpW5yRHtiUZnBfHlNoIdzOH7-E5CXBWABCbYmq/s1600-h/Dr.+Chee+Soon+Juan+%26+Sister+Chee+Siok+Chin.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhmyG2nADh7_Ep8UzbMB46aC5pqyDHD76G-0bdK5jXNFjyPNXNga-4o7mwd4cvc3yJopR1DQa-tkGgYRox6B9swBkRVf8woZ4LbZob4DfpW5yRHtiUZnBfHlNoIdzOH7-E5CXBWABCbYmq/s400/Dr.+Chee+Soon+Juan+%26+Sister+Chee+Siok+Chin.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211147365234189026" /></a><br />Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin<br /><br /><strong>Originally posted on http://yoursdp.org </strong><br /><br />In one of the cross examination sessions in the Singapore court room between Dr. Chee and Mr. Lee, Lee is asked what he meant by his statement: That the PAP had engineered elections and that Singaporeans would be very stupid to vote us out. Lee answered that Singaporeans were essentially better off materially since 1959 when Lee and his PAP came to power, this answer was evasive. What Lee originally likely meant was that since each constituency gets money for various projects, then if a constituency voted in an opposition member those monies would not be released.<br /><br />MM Lee lost for words during cross-examination by Chee <br />Sunday, 01 June 2008 <br />Singapore Democrats<br /><br />The following is an exchange between Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Lee Kuan Yew during cross-examination on 27 May 08. Note how Mr Lee was unable to answer Dr Chee at the beginning of the session. Mr Lee appeared vulnerable at certain moments. <br /><br />This was never revealed by the mainstream press. Through clever editing, the Minister Mentor is always portrayed to possess a sharp-tongue and quick-wit. This exchange explodes the myth. It will change the way you see Mr Lee and the whole PAP machinery. Shorn off their media make-up they look and perform very ordinarily.<br /><br />Still, his was a better performance than Lee junior who seemed nervous and stiff. It was clear that Hsien Loong could not expound the ideas that his father could. This is understandable as many of the younger generation of leaders are technocrats with few original ideas of their own. <br /><br />Also, the state media went out of its way to describe Dr Chee and Ms Chee as incompetent and rude. The transcript, taken from the audio-recording, will show this to be wholly false. <br /><br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: (pause)...Sorry?<br /><br />CSJ: We get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: I thought we've met many other times across election rallies.<br /><br />CSJ: Your memory fails you. I've never met you before and you know why? Because you keep avoiding me. (Mr Lee laughs) Well, we have this opportunity right now. Let me ask you this question. You gave an interview saying: "If you defame us, and if I'm involved, I go to the the witness box and you can question me not only on the particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life." Do you stand by your words?<br /><br />LKY: I do.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. In the course of the cross-examination, will you then answer questions not just on this particular defamation issue, but on all issues in your life -- and I don't mean your personal life, I mean your political life? Will you stand by that?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, we appeared in court when the issue was whether or not the summary judgment was proper. That was the time to challenge --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, that was not my question.<br /><br />Judge: Allow the witness to answer. Mr Lee, please go on.<br /><br />LKY: I have to answer. I'm a lawyer. I no longer practice the law. I know your purpose. You dodged that occasion and you're trying -- Dr Chee is trying today when the issue is the question of quantum of damages, it's not liability. I'm here to answer questions relating to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ: Thank you. Then why is it that you say you will go to the witness box --<br /><br />LKY: I have already explained that, Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: -- and answer questions not just particular to this defamation issue but on all issues of your life. Now tell me, are those just brave words meant for public consumption and in this situation right now you're turning tail and running?<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha, no Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Then you won't mind me asking you why is it that you make this application to cut short your cross-examination precisely when you walk in at noon and say that you have to be stopped in the cross-examination by 2:15 giving me. the defence, only two hours and fifteen minutes, and then insisting that all of us can't go for lunch. And on top of that refusing to tell the court what this "important matter" you have this afternoon is.<br /><br />LKY: That's...Your Honour...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: I'm lost for words too as I think you are right now.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause; Mr Lee was seen opening his mouth to answer but no words came out)<br /><br />CSJ: Go ahead, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: No answer? That settles the question then. <br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ: Fine, let Mr Lee continue. I'm just waiting. He's probably lost for words because he doesn't quite know what to say at this stage.<br /><br />Judge: If you keep interrupting the witness...Yes, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(even longer pause)<br />CSJ: Please don't run down the clock. I've only got a few minutes.<br />At this stage, Mr Davinder Singh jumped in to bail out Mr Lee. <br /><br />Singh: What is the question? Dr Chee has made so many points in his speech. He has already been told that the time to cross-examine the witness was during the summary judgment. If he had leave to defend. All issues would have been open for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that Dr Chee had dodged that application and is now trying through the back door to introduce impermissible material. The witness said he is here as he said to answer questions on quantum. Dr Chee should really get on with the issue of quantum.<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask the question again. Mr Lee, you have said that you are here to answer these questions and I say that in that case why did you make an application to, halfway through the session, want the court to cut short this entire hearing. Now, I remind you that we have got until the end of tomorow, the end of tomorrow. So we have one-and-a-half days. But you insist that we have to finish by 2:15 for you to attend to some matters that you won't even reveal to the court. Now I ask you now does this sound like somebody who's willing to come to court and meet and resolve the issues?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I had a message from one of my counsel's aides to say that I should be in court by here 2 o'clock - by 12 o'clock because Your Honour has imposed a guillotine that the cross-examination of the prime minister would end at twelve. So I turn up at twelve. I was told that the guillotine allowed - had already been late he would be given 2 hours. I suggest - I asked my counsel to request the court to finish this two hours so that I can attend to some important matters. There's no disadvantage to anybody to be sitting here and finishing off this cross-examination within the two hours. What I do not want to be a party to is a deliberate abuse of the process, of the proceedings of the court by delaying tactics.<br /><br />CSJ: So, Mr Lee --<br /><br />LKY: And by asking irrelevant questions, Dr Chee is running out the guillotine. At the end of the day, we've had this confrontation face to face have you thrown any dirt, have you dug up any scandal? Are you still saying as you've said before that this government is run like the NKF?<br /><br />CSJ: Now, Mr Lee, let me try to --<br /><br />LKY: No, we are here because you have said that --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, I'm going to ask you this question and I wish you'd just stick to the questions that I pose to you. I'm asking you why did you come to court --<br /><br />LKY: Because I was asked --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me rephrase my question. Are you telling the court that you had nothing to do with the curtailment of this entire process?<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, I made the application this morning and Your Honour would remembers that I said I was very troubled with what the Chees did yesterday and that it was quite apparent that they had nothing to ask which was of any relevance and that unfortunately or otherwise has been proven in this exchange. And I said, Your Honour, that the whole purpose of the cross-examination was to insult, annoy and to scandalise and that's also been proven true. For that reason, I had asked that there be a guillotine. Your Honour had full powers to control the proceedings. The order has already been made and I don't see why this witness should be asked to explain something that was the subject of my application and Your Honour's order.<br /><br />CSJ: Do you see the game that's being played here, Mr Lee? Do you see how you are beginning to hide behind your counsel and then claim, "Look, I'm willing to confront them. It's my counsel." Now I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Right here, right now, tell Mr Davnder Singh "Don't interrupt. I will answer these questions as they are put to me right now."<br /><br />LKY: Heh-heh. Your Honour, I've briefed counsel, I've always found it's never wise to be my own lawyer in my own case. I know that some people believe that they can do otherwise, and I'm quite sure that Dr Chee is making a very great impression on all the reporters in this court of how he is better than Mr Ravi --<br /><br />CSJ: I think you meant Mr Singh.<br /><br />LKY: I believe Mr Singh is better qualified to deal with the legalities of this case.<br /><br />CSJ: Well, I should hope so with all the training that he's got. Now, coming back to my question, Mr Lee, is your answer no, that you Will not tell Mr Singh: "Stay out of this. Let me answer my question because --<br /><br />LKY: I --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me finish my question -- because you have said -- and I repeat to you -- that you will answer not only questions about the "particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life."<br /><br />LKY: Yes...as long as that was what was an issue and that was the, it was an issue in the summary judgement was appealed against. [Note how garbled the answer is.] And we turned up for the hearing but you dodged the hearing.<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, you are not unintelligent.<br /><br />LKY: Thank you.<br /><br />CSJ: You knew precisely what you meant and what you mean is: "Come and ask me all these questions that doesn't pertain to this defamation suit and I will answer you because my entire standing, including the standing of this government, is at stake." Is that not correct?<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant. <br /><br />More of the exchanges will be posted in due course. They are must reads. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Comments Add New Search RSS <br /><br /><< Begin < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >> <br /><< Begin < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >> <br /><br />goh - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 7:21 pm <br /><br />Thanks for the transcripts, if you have that in tape for us to hear maybe in youtube, maybe we can actually hear the tone and the suspension in action. Any way great job. <br /><br />Quote 33 3 <br /><br /><br /><br />Surprise at the truth - Lee's eloquence without his media makeup Sun, 01 Jun 2008 7:46 pm <br /><br />Wow, without the media makeup, LKY can hardly speak or hold an argument. He just paused and paused and paused....<br /><br />Perhaps he is getting senile, and age is catching up with him.<br /><br />This is the kind of information that the media does not give. Any unbiased media would have televised this on national TV, or at least have the transcript available on the newspaper. <br /><br />However, now with the internet, nothing could be hidden.<br />SDP, you should have alternative plans should the government try to shut down your website or domain!!! This kind of information should go down for posterity. There should be multiple website worldwide that keep archive of the transcript between LEE and CHEE. This is only a partial transcript. A full transcript would be invaluable.<br /><br />I will look forward to reading your website for more transcript. You are whetting my appetite by releasing this in parts <br /><br />BTW, has anyone recorded an audio transcript or a video? If so, can it be put on Youtube? <br /><br />Quote 33 7 <br /><br /><br /><br />Ordinary Singaporean - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 8:16 pm <br /><br />Dr Chee, I am sure you have whatever degrees but with an idiotic mind. What are you trying to prove? To your western sympathisers that you have the damn guts to take on the Lees. <br /><br />Quote 9 74 <br /><br /><br /><br />G Chen - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 8:43 pm <br /><br />I was there and whatever that was mentioned here is exactly as stated...with awkward pauses. <br /><br />Quote 25 1 <br /><br /><br /><br />Chew - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 9:11 pm <br /><br />Nice! I am sure our world ranked #154 media will never pick this up verbatim. <br /><br />Quote 26 0 <br /><br /><br /><br />Eric - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 9:14 pm <br /><br />Thanks for the transcript.<br /><br />Pls post it on youtube if possible.<br />Would really like to hear the whole thing.<br /><br />Thanks <br /><br />Quote 15 3 <br /><br /><br /><br />Desmond Quek - Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:05 pm <br /><br />Great job Mr chee!I really admire for your courage in standing up for Singaporean like us.You really sounds our thought and what is running inside our mind.Bravo MR CHEE!!Three Cheers for you and sincerly hope you'll win the case and shut that old fart and his multi million dollars all talk no action cabinet minsters.All his minsters are only good in putting up shows. <br /><br />Quote 17 3 <br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Chan - God is not great after all Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:37 am <br /><br />If only a sound recording, it's called podcast, Youtube is video recording which is impossible with the 3-5 matas standing near you and watching like hawks.It's a Police State after all.<br />The God of no mercy has been exposed here as not so great after all. Apparently he has all along done it with mirrors and sleight of hand. What a fraud and we are paying him $3.7 million? Something wrong here! <br /><br />Quote 13 1 <br /><br /><br /><br />SDP Website - Alternative site- Be proactive please Mon, 02 Jun 2008 5:28 am <br /><br />SDP, you should have alternative plans should the government try to shut down your website or domain!!!<br /><br />Better have backup plans as it is difficult getting to your website these days.<br /><br />PAP will not stop at anything to prevent Singaporeans from learning the truth.<br /><br />If they can put us al in Jail House Rock - for their benefit/gain -they will do it.<br /><br />So Pls be prepared.<br /><br />Where are we to go to read facts. Besides Mr Gopalan Nair's blog will soon dissappear from the face of the earth- as he has already been "captured". <br /><br />Quote 8 3 <br /><br /><br /><br />Gary Teoh - Mon, 02 Jun 2008 5:41 am <br /><br />For court case, I don't think there is video or you tube.Looks like LKY's response is slower now.He should retire graciously,Tell me what is his worry ?Dont want to step down.Money? Any secret in GIC which can not be exposed ? <br /><br />Quote 13 1 <br /><br /><br /><br />Simon - re: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 5:59 am <br /><br />Ordinary Singaporean wrote:<br />Dr Chee, I am sure you have whatever degrees but with an idiotic mind. What are you trying to prove? To your western sympathisers that you have the damn guts to take on the Lees.<br /><br /><br />We know that you are trying to prove to others that you are have an "idiotic mind". <br /><br />Quote 16 1 <br /><br /><br /><br />Lee - Without his script-writers, MM cannot talk Mon, 02 Jun 2008 6:19 am <br /><br />What do you think LKY meant when he said "I am a lawyer. I no longer practice the law".<br /><br />The truth is that he is trying to create an excuse as to why he is at a lost of words... and having all the long pauses. Note that he have script writers that write all his speeches, and he just read them (like he wrote them). Now in an actual court of law, it become apparent real soon that he is just an ordinary person, perhaps senile with age and unable to speak reasonably. He has to depend on a train lawyer like Singh to be his mouthpiece.<br /><br />This transcript have just explode the myth ... force him in the open without hiding behind script writers, and appearing to be smart... <br /><br />Quote 12 1 <br /><br /><br /><br />Jen - Mon, 02 Jun 2008 7:24 am <br /><br />Well done SDP, way to go! <br /><br />Quote 8 4 <br /><br /><br /><br />Paul Poh - Mon, 02 Jun 2008 7:48 am <br /><br />Wow, without state propaganda media singing his praises and propagating his bullshit, Lee Kuan Yew is quite worthless as a debater and politician.<br /><br />Step down lah Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br />Old man already still want to cling on to power. <br /><br />Quote 21 5 <br /><br /><br /><br />tunkudon - Mon, 02 Jun 2008 8:13 am <br /><br />yes put in podcast so tat more pp will belive. i belive. <br /><br />Quote <br /><br /><strong>Originally posted on http://yoursdp.org </strong><br /><br />Integrity? What integrity? (audio recording 2b) <br />Tuesday, 10 June 2008 <br />Singapore Democrats<br /><br />Here is another section of the cross-examination of Mr Lee Kuan Yew by Dr Chee Soon Juan. <br /><br />If you prefer, you can download the audio here (.aac, 2.8 MB) or here (.mp3, 0.8 MB).<br /><br />LKY : That's contrary to all the assessments and if you look at the publication, I can't remember the title that the Supreme Court puts out, there's a whole series of assessment made by seven or eight international rating agencies about Singapore. Also may I add the World Bank has recommended and in fact brought many delegations from many countries to study how the judiciary and the judicial system has progressed in Singapore and is now cited as a model.<br /><br />CSJ : Is this the same World Bank that came and said that Singapore had brought this upon itself when it tried to restrict accredited NGO activists, accredited with the World Bank, coming into Singapore and conducting its activities. Is this the same World Bank that you are talking about?<br /><br />LKY : We do not comply with every request being made because there are certain things which we believe we know better.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, but your government has given the World Bank the green light -<br /><br />LKY : No, just a moment, let me finish. You have asked me this question. Let me finish. If the World Bank did not hold Singapore's judicial system in high esteem, it would not have come out with that report nor would they have brought delegations to come and study us.<br /><br />CSJ : That is not my question, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY : And there are endless delegations which have come to study our system -<br /><br />CSJ : That was not my question, Mr Lee. You brought up the World Bank. I'm asking you, that World Bank that came and said that Singapore should have let in these accredited NGOs because, listen very carefully, because the Singapore Government had an agreement with World Bank to let them in and it was upon the very last minute that someone in your cabinet made that decision to say no.<br /><br />LKY : I do not attend to these matters anymore. I'm only the Minister Mentor. I'm not in charge but I do know that we act in accordance with what we think is the best practice for Singapore and when we disagree with a particular prescription of how we should behave, or how we should conduct Singapore, we have to decide whether that is applicable.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand.<br /><br />LKY : And I know that there many liberal NGOs who are extremely uncomfortable that a system in Singapore which does not comply with their prescriptions is still up and standing and thriving.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, Mr Lee, these NGOs were accredited with the World Bank -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I'm going to stop this line of cross-examination. It doesn't get us anywhere on the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Okay, alright, let me move on, you honour. You have a situation where you are again claiming that your integrity is of the highest order, would you agree with that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : That is the position that I have taken the day I took office in June 1959. I spent more than 50 years of, I would say 49 years of my life, being involved in the strengthening of the system and the institutions that would sustain itself even if there were flaws in the human beings that run the system. That is the reason why we are still what we are.<br /><br />CSJ : I am impressed. Now -<br /><br />LKY : Now, if you are impressed, Mr Chee, you would not have made these allegations.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, is this the same integrity that you are talking about where now, declassified documents from London, that you have -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : He's talking about integrity and I would like - Your honour, he has brought up integrity and I just want to be able to pursue that line just a little bit more. Is this the same integrity -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, are you objecting to the line of questioning?<br /><br />CSJ : That you are referring to, Mr Lee, where now we begin to know, and as a young man I didn't -<br /><br />Judhe : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : As a young man I believed you. But now I'm reading declassified documents from London saying that somehow, Mr Lim Chin Siong was in his<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, (inaudible) stop<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Political situation -<br /><br />Judge : Question disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : And that somehow, you had - I beg your pardon, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : You haven't even heard my question yet. I'll make my question and then you can disallow it, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : The question is irrelevant on the little that we already know about it relates to specific instances which absolutely -<br /><br />CSJ : That when you went to London -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, I would ask Dr Chee to show some respect to this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You had allowed what you called "subversive (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : The question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : To come in play (inaudible) Mr Lim would have been disqualified.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to get at this fact that Mr Lee uses the word integrity and I want to show the courts right now that Mr Lee came into power because of certain things -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant to the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : That his government did which deprived his political opponents -<br /><br />Judge : Move on, please!<br /><br />CSJ : Of challenging him. Will you answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You don't want to answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : That settles the point, doesn't it? <br /><br />Acknowledgement: much of the written script is credited to the work of Martyn See at http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/<br /><br />"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955 <br /><br />If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955 <br /><br />"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."<br /><br />- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956<br /><br />_________________________________________________________________<br /><br />The final instalment of the courtroom clash between Lee Kuan Yew and Chee Soon Juan. Transcript courtesy of yours truly. Continues from Part lV. <br /><br />CSJ : You had mentioned, Mr Lee, that there were two ways of gaining political power. You had said something about being not a bankrupt so that you can stand for elections and then the other method you said was through constitutional means, through -<br /><br />LKY : Through unconstitutional means.<br /><br />CSJ : The other way? No, I think you meant through constitutional means.<br /><br />Singh : If Dr Chee would stop talking and start listening, he would have heard that what the witness said was either do it be constitutional means, i.e through parliament by not being a bankrupt or violently, illegally.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. I appreciate your assistance on this matter. I agree. I completely agree with you, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : May I -<br /><br />CSJ : That constitutional means is the way to go -<br /><br />Singh : No, no, no -<br /><br />CSJ : But the funny thing, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? It's not whether it's a funny thing or not. The only thing funny with (inaudible) are the speeches coming out -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can I ask for a ruling that Dr Chee (inaudible) the questions because in the last -<br /><br />CSJ : The constitution allows us freedom of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : And you have completely butchered all that!<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, the last question, if that can be a question, is completely irrelevant as far as this court is concerned. I've already said those sort of questions are not for this courtroom. He's here to assess to the damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Point taken, your honour. And this is what I'm trying to derive at -<br /><br />Judge : Now 2.40. I've given you the indulgence. I don't know if Miss Chee wishes to ask questions. I assume you are eating into her time.<br /><br />CSJ : All that I'm saying right now is, your honour, Mr Lee has made this point that to gain political power there are certain rules and those rules are set in the constitution. And I'm saying that I agree with it. Those rules were not written by me. Those rules were written by the British, and which Mr Lee agreed to. Now in one of those rules there, it says citizens of Singapore are guaranteed the freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question?<br /><br />CSJ : Right now, why is Mr Lee changing those rules? Because when I begin to exercise these freedoms of speech and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : If that's the question, the witness will answer the question.<br /><br />CSJ : We get arrested. Tell us right now, are you up for a free and fair fight during elections?<br /><br />LKY : I do not know -<br /><br />CSJ : In a constitutional manner.<br /><br />LKY : There is nothing to hinder an opposition party in Singapore from -<br /><br />CSJ : I beg your pardon. There's everything that will hinder an opposition party.<br /><br />LKY : The SDP was doing very well under Chiam See Tong and at one time captured three seats and it became the de-facto leader. You came in and destroy the SDP -<br /><br />CSJ : Don't change subject, Mr Lee. Don't change the subject.<br /><br />LKY : As a result, because you had destroyed the standing of the SDP, the Workers' Party has become the de-facto leader of the opposition. That's an open con-(inaudible). The Workers' Party has won the elections, Mr Chiam in his personal capacity has continually and repeatedly won the elections without defaming anybody.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I talk about -<br /><br />LKY : Low Thia Kiang has not defame anybody, not defame the government, neither has Chiam See Tong and they have won successive by-elections but you have lost successively because we have disproved to the people that you are not to be believed.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I ask you about freedoms of speech, assembly-<br /><br />LKY : That is the whole purpose of this exchange in this court -<br /><br />CSJ : When I ask you about the freedoms of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />LKY : We have heard all that -<br /><br />CSJ : I don't just mean political parties. I mean citizens of Singapore. Even a citizen of this country who is not a member of a political party has the right to freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : And the question is, your honour?<br /><br />CSJ : Would you allow these people their rights or are you going to sit there and continue to curtail their rights? Simple answer, Mr Lee, you know -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Disallowed. This is not the court to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You are intelligent. You know what freedom of speech is. You know what freedom of assembly is.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I've already ruled. Please continue with the next question.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, will you allow more than five people to assemble in an public area?<br /><br />LKY : These -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, these rules were in existence before the PAP took office. They have remained on our statute book, or rather in regulations under the statutes.<br /><br />CSJ : And you are saying that these rules before the PAP. Which was the government before the PAP? The British, I assume.<br /><br />LKY : No, before the -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let me ask you. Was the British a colonial government?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Lee, it is not for you to answer that question.<br /><br />CSJ : He's made that point and I'm just clarifying that point. Your honour, you see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : I've already ruled.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, hear me out. Mr Lee makes his point that his party, his government, did not come up with these rules. I say fine. Who came up with these rules then? The British came up with these rules. The point that I want to establish is the British was an undemocratic government. Mr Lee is making my point right now that by continuing these undemocratic rules, Singapore has been governed in a very undemocratic way. And when you govern Singapore in an undemocratic way, you try to tell this court here that my reputation is A-One, you have a problem.<br /><br />LKY : I -<br /><br />CSJ : But if Mr George Bush or Mr Gordon Brown or any leader in the democratic world stands up and says, "if I can garner 80% of the votes", yes, that would be something. But not in a society where you controlled the press, and I remember, Mr Lee, whether you do or not I don't know, but when you said about the -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, how long do we have to listen to this because Dr Chee is not prepared to listen -<br /><br />CSJ : The media, the press, being controlled to the point where they begin to be sycophants -<br /><br />Judge : I've taken (inaudible) of Mr Chee's conduct which I will deal with on Wednesday.<br /><br />Singh : Thank you, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, would you then respond?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer. Question is totally irrelevant to the assessment of damages. I have repeated myself many times.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry?<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45 now.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let's continue on because this is a very important national matter.<br /><br />Judge : Not for this court, Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour -<br /><br />Judge : (inaudible) Take it outside this courtroom. My ruling -<br /><br />CSJ : But, no. Hold on. Wait, wait. Your honour, Mr Lee is saying that his reputation is very important because it is national matter and in that context I'm trying to deal with. If he didn't say that his reputation is of national priority, then there is no issue. But right now, Mr Lee has made that point and Mr Lee has continued to want to defend, then let me then question him as well. (Pause) Mr Lee, you had some point said that the PAP, I take it a lot of times it is you, that said that "we have engineered elections that would make Singaporeans stupid to want to vote us out." What do you mean by that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : We have given Singaporeans something that we've never had before. Singapore society which is now well-educated, 20% of them in tertiary institutions, 40% of them in polytechnics, another 20% in ITE, everybody owns a home, everybody has got proper medical care and everybody is catered for and looked after. If they were not catered for and looked after, they wouldn't have voted for this government to be re-elected. It's as simple as that. The final test is not what Mr Chee says or what I say but the reality on the ground. Have we created Singapore better than 1959? When the Prime Minister goes for elections in a few years time, whether he wins or loses depends on whether the people believe they're worse off or better off. It's as simple as that. This is the acid test.<br /><br />CSJ : Sure, sure, but unfortunately Mr Lee, it is not as simple as that because if you're saying that the acid test is whether people feel they benefited from your system, then why is it, Mr Lee, that even you and the current Senior Minister continue to lament that Singaporeans are leaving Singapore in droves. Let me cite you a statistic that I didn't do the study - it was your press that did it - cited that 50% of young Singaporeans didn't feel that they were patriotic to this country. Can you explain when you say to Singaporeans that you've done so well, provided so much for them, and yet - now you have 50 years, no interruptions, there was never any change in governments in between, so you had an uninterrupted period of rule in Singapore, yet at the end of the road, you come to a situation where your young cannot wait to want to get out when they have a chance and tell you "we don't feel patriotic at all to this country." Have you failed, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I am not aware of this particular survey, how wide it is, and I'm not particularly moved one way or the other. The final test is - are they leaving permanently? Because that's what they can do. We have educated them to a point where those in the top 20% with tertiary qualifications can go to any English-speaking country and find a job. That is the acid test and that goes on all the time.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I am trying to tell that your worry is that they are leaving permanently, they are not coming back, they are even willing to break their bonds because they don't want to continue living in a society which you have created. They don't want to live in this society which they don't feel a sense of belonging. They don't want to live in a society where they have no say, that come elections, everything is railroaded, and they don't have a way that they can pick their leaders.<br /><br />LKY : Therefore, I advise you to find some way, get your NGO supporters, to discharge you from your bankruptcy, then you would be able to campaign against us.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, how do I campaign against you when at every turn of the way, you put a stop to it? One way that I can campaign is through the media. You control it. One way that I can campaign is to get down to the street and talk to voters. You arrest me. One way that I can campaign is through my party's newspaper. You sue us. Tell me, apart from using this word "campaign" in the most frivolous, the most egregious of manner, how do we campaign when you, sitting in the Istana, makes sure opposition parties can never, never compete on an equal footing?<br /><br />LKY : In no country is it the duty of the government to build the opposition. And the fact that opposition leaders can get elected, re-elected and re-elected, despite very riogorous campaigning against them by leaders of the PAP, proves that they know when they decide that they want this man, they will vote for him.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm not asking you to build up the opposition -<br /><br />LKY : I am suggesting to Dr Chee that if he follows the constitutional route, with his eloquence, if he can establish credibility with his eloquence, he has a better chance than Mr Low Thia Kiang or Mr Chiam See Tong. But if he has got no credibility, and the proceedings in the last two days would not have been unnoticed, the press is here, public is here. You have come and try to degrade the proceedings, you have come to make an abuse of the processes of this court. The judge is in charge. The judge knows you can appeal against her judgements. The judge can given you all the opportunities to tie yourself up. That is my reading of what is going on in this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, the opposition has never made the case that you as the ruling party -<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : He has made a point, your honour, and I like to respond. And that is that - you see, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : (inaudible) it fails on all grounds of cross-examination, on irrelevance that really, we've past I think a long time ago, I think just as the cross-examination started, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree - I move on to my next question, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : He's got an answer now and so he cannot challenge that answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree, Mr Lee - are you saying, you telling the courts right now that the government has not hampered the opposition in any way?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee, I do not wish to hear that line of questioning any more -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to make this point -<br /><br />Judge : It is totally irrelevant. What I have to decide on -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour. Let me make this point. Mr Lee has brought up -<br /><br />Judge : One minute more.<br /><br />CSJ : The point that I am asking -<br /><br />Judge : You have one minute to ask the last question.<br /><br />CSJ : The government should make it easy for the opposition and my point is no. All we asking for the government to come to a set of rules -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant. I've already said, Dr Chee. If you wish this line of questioning, do it outside my courtroom!<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour, what I'm trying to tell you is that it goes to his reputation. It's what I'm here for. (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : It's completely irrelevant. I have ruled on this. Dr Chee, if you persist -<br /><br />(Pause)<br /><br />CSJ : If you believe that if the public was to have a free say in the running of this country -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, same objection. You honour has already ruled earlier on the same point. The question is being repeated again and again.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour. It's something - again as I said makes a lot of difference whether Mr Lee - when he says that his reputation is of a certain standard, that he must, he must then have the courage to be able to face reality and not hide behind, take refuge, in a system that has been designed to ensure that the reputation remains up there, regardless of reality.<br /><br />Singh : That was in the affidavit which was struck out, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I think Mr Lee has made an attempt to answer. Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I do not want to waste more of the time of the court that's not relevant to this case but may I add that my reputation has been established over a period of 50 years, 49 years in government, and 4 and a half years as the leader of the opposition.<br /><br />CSJ : All good?<br /><br />LKY : It is not for me to say it is all good or bad.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree that it's a mixture of good and bad?<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />LKY : Will you allow me to - you've asked me for an answer and I am giving it to you but if its not to your liking, I'm sorry, but you will have to hear me out. At the end of the day, my job is done. I've passed power on and I'm just Minister Mentor. I'm a data-bank. I have no purpose then to see that the system which I've set in place continues to the benefit of Singapore, and part of the proceedings, the painful process is to go through this exercise when you have no questions and you're running away from it. Because at the end of the day, it's not just as you pointed out and Mr Ravi as the SDP counsel submitted, it is the wider public. I'm conscious of that. I think sometimes, you are not.<br /><br />CSJ : If you are talking about the wider public, Mr Lee, then you must also realise that -<br /><br />Judge : No more questions.<br /><br />CSJ : The wider public wants you to leave the political stage. Would you agree?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />This marks the end of the of Chee Soon Juan's cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew. The next next defendent, Chee Siok Chin, was only given 10 minutes to query Lee. <br /><br />Next in Part Vl, the full transcript of Chee Siok Chin's earlier cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong. That's a real classic. Do check back.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 4:36 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, June 07, 2008<br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br />More transcript of the cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew by Chee Soon Juan. The transcript is courtesy of yours truly and is based on the digital recodings obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, turn with me to your AEIC. Did you or did you not say that "CSJ harbours a deep-seated hatred for me?"<br /><br />LKY : Yes, I saw that affidavit.<br /><br />CSJ : Good. That's right, okay.<br /><br />LKY : And you are manifesting it in court today.<br /><br />CSJ : On the contrary, Mr Lee, I don't hate you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. I think you cut a pitiable figure but I don't hate you. You see, I think you derive a lot of pleasure from what you do but I don't think that you find any joy in life.<br /><br />Singh : What's the question? Can I ask the witness, can I ask Dr Chee to frame his question?<br /><br />CSJ : For me, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get on with the questions, if he has any. If not he should honourably say "no further questions", your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : The whole entire matter rests because you want to turn this fight into one of a personal duel. I'm not interested. What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy - that is going to last for all eternity.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there. I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary -<br /><br />CSJ : Standards of the MRT or standards of the rule of law?<br /><br />LKY : Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practised throughout the judiciary.<br /><br />CSJ : What about the International Commission of Jurists? Do you have any comment on them?<br /><br />LKY : There are Western organisations who believe you should only progress and become prosperous by being democratic in their particular way, their prescription -<br /><br />CSJ : Is the International Bar Association an Asian organisation?<br /><br />LKY : It is an international organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. So you have international organisation and international organisation. You pick one and you don't pick the other.<br /><br />LKY : No, we pick those who will make Singapore strong and prosperous. We do not follow -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you pick those which will make you look good.<br /><br />LKY : No, on the contrary, if those - the attributes that we go for, meritocracy, integrity, the education of the people, the quality of life of the people, facilities that we give them to advance - if those were missing, then all the indicators will soon turn downhill. One reason why we had allowed this altercation to go on is because we are leaning over backwards to allow you enough rope to tie yourself up, and you have successfully done that.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : You have a guillotine. You know you have the time of two hours and you are wasting it, frittering it because you have nothing of substance to confront me with.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I had dinner with the Executive Director of the International Bar Association and I have correspondence with them as well. At the end of the Rule of Law Symposium which you were referring to, many of the participants came away very unhappy that the International Bar Association had held its meeting here. And I want to remind you that it continues to be a problem and I believe that the International Bar Association is watching this event very closely.<br /><br />LKY : I'm sure they are and if you were present at my address to the International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : No, I was not present because you know why?<br /><br />LKY : You will know that there was an approbation, and not a disapprobation. I don't have to quote private dinner conversations. That was a public event with 3000 international lawyers there.<br /><br />CSJ : Then also tell me -<br /><br />LKY : May I also add that several of them, including Third World countries have come up and asked to see me, including the Governor of Lagos, to ask me if I could go there and address their International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, and Mr Lee, were those the same participants that attended the Rule of Law symposium and when I stood up to speak, when Mr Jayakumar was present, and the Chair wanted to cut me off and when I turned to the audience, and we said about 3000 or so, and I asked them, "Do you want to hear the rest of the story of the other Singapore?", there was loud and susutained applause to the extent that Mr Frank Kneed (check spelling), the Chairman, had no choice but to allow me to continue. Will you then take it that this same group of lawyers had wanted to hear how the law in Singapore has been misused, has been abused, that frankly, there is no rule of law in Singapore.<br /><br />LKY : That's contrary to all the assessments and if you look at the publication, I can't remember the title that the Supreme Court puts out, there's a whole series of assessment made by seven or eight international rating agencies about Singapore. Also may I add the World Bank has recommended and in fact brought many delegations from many countries to study how the judiciary and the judicial system has progressed in Singapore and is now cited as a model.<br /><br />CSJ : Is this the same World Bank that came and said that Singapore had brought this upon itself when it tried to restrict accredited NGO activists, accredited with the World Bank, coming into Singapore and conducting its activities. Is this the same World Bank that you are talking about?<br /><br />LKY : We do not comply with every request being made because there are certain things which we believe we know better.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, but your government has given the World Bank the green light -<br /><br />LKY : No, just a moment, let me finish. You have asked me this question. Let me finish. If the World Bank did not hold Singapore's judicial system in high esteem, it would not have come out with that report nor would they have brought delegations to come and study us.<br /><br />CSJ : That is not my question, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY : And there are endless delegations which have come to study our system -<br /><br />CSJ : That was not my question, Mr Lee. You brought up the World Bank. I'm asking you, that World Bank that came and said that Singapore should have let in these accredited NGOs because, listen very carefully, because the Singapore Government had an agreement with World Bank to let them in and it was upon the very last minute that someone in your cabinet made that decision to say no.<br /><br />LKY : I do not attend to these matters anymore. I'm only the Minister Mentor. I'm not in charge but I do know that we act in accordance with what we think is the best practice for Singapore and when we disagree with a particular prescription of how we should behave, or how we should conduct Singapore, we have to decide whether that is applicable.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand.<br /><br />LKY : And I know that there many liberal NGOs who are extremely uncomfortable that a system in Singapore which does not comply with their prescriptions is still up and standing and thriving.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, Mr Lee, these NGOs were accredited with the World Bank -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I'm going to stop this line of cross-examination. It doesn't get us anywhere on the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Okay, alright, let me move on, you honour. You have a situation where you are again claiming that your integrity is of the highest order, would you agree with that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : That is the position that I have taken the day I took office in June 1959. I spent more than 50 years of, I would say 49 years of my life, being involved in the strengthening of the system and the institutions that would sustain itself even if there were flaws in the human beings that run the system. That is the reason why we are still what we are.<br /><br />CSJ : I am impressed. Now -<br /><br />LKY : Now, if you are impressed, Mr Chee, you would not have made these allegations.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, is this the same integrity that you are talking about where now, declassified documents from London, that you have -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Mr Lee is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : He's talking about integrity and I would like - Your honour, he has brought up integrity and I just want to be able to pursue that line just a little bit more. Is this the same integrity -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, are you objecting to the line of questioning?<br /><br />CSJ : That you are referring to, Mr Lee, where now we begin to know, and as a young man I didn't -<br /><br />Judhe : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : As a young man I believed you. But now I'm reading declassified documents from London saying that somehow, Mr Lim Chin Siong was in his<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, (inaudible) stop<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Political situation -<br /><br />Judge : Question disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : And that somehow, you had - I beg your pardon, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : You haven't even heard my question yet. I'll make my question and then you can disallow it, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : The question is irrelevant on the little that we already know about it relates to specific instances which absolutely -<br /><br />CSJ : That when you went to London -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, I would ask Dr Chee to show some respect to this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You had allowed what you called "subversive (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : The question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : To come in play (inaudible) Mr Lim would have been disqualified.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to get at this fact that Mr Lee uses the word integrity and I want to show the courts right now that Mr Lee came into power because of certain things -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant to the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : That his government did which deprived his political opponents -<br /><br />Judge : Move on, please!<br /><br />CSJ : Of challenging him. Will you answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You don't want to answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : That settles the point, doesn't it? Mr Lee, let me come to -<br /><br />Judge : You're -<br /><br />CSJ : I have some more questions, your honour. Mr Lee, will you say categorically, right now, that you will allow a full and fair investigations into all your Internal Security Act detentions over the years?<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Sustained.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, it goes to your integrity. This is what I'm saying. That you say your government has lasted for all these years - you cited 1959 and you brought it up until now - and I'm trying to make the case that no, it was not just popular support. If it was that, grant you, your reputation is of the highest order. What I'm trying to make the case right now is that you had all this power at your disposal, you abused it, used that to lock away all your political opponents -<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Used that to crush independent and free media. You used that to make elections almost uncontestable for us and then you stand before the courts and tell the court that my reputation is sterling and I'm saying, Mr Lee, have some humility, have some sense of shame, that you are able to put this into context about everything that you've done in your life and then come clean and tell us the truth right now, that you did all these things.<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant, move on.<br /><br />CSJ : No response, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : Witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : I thought so. Now Mr Lee, you had your Press Secretary issued a statement, I think it was last Friday -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour has already ruled on this point in the cros-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong -<br /><br />CSJ : Did you or did you not allow your press secretary to make this statement because if you did, then we have a problem here, because Madam Yeong, Madam Yong I beg your pardon, is a civil servant. You are suing me, the party and Miss Chee Siok Chin in your private capacity, and if you are doing it in your private capacity, but then you've gotten a civil servant to issue press statements such as this on your behalf using taxpayers' money, on State time, then I think there is a big problem here.<br /><br />LKY : There is no problem at all. I have already stated that technically in accordance to the law I have to sue in my personal capacity with the Prime Minister. But in fact, you are attacking the whole government to become one in which the public will not believe in. What is at stake is whether what you said about the government being run like the NKF is true or not true. And I have a press secretary and she is my press secretary, I said go ahead.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, that's exactly -<br /><br />LKY : And I am entitled to do that. Look, I'm not here to quibble about the technicalities. The technicalities are yes, I'm here in my personal capacity, but the reality is we were advised by our lawyers that we are the two who most represent the government, and that's why we are here.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand that -<br /><br />LKY : And we are defending the government, not just defending ourselves.<br /><br />CSJ : I can see that point.<br /><br />LKY : If Dr Chee sees that point, why pursue it further?<br /><br />CSJ : My question to you is that if you had sued me in your personal capacity - let's not come with the 'ands', 'ifs' or 'buts' because you sign this affidavit as Mr Lee Kuan Yew NRIC number 0000003E, then why is it that you've gotten a civil servant who is paid by the taxpayers to do your private work for you?<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, when the President of the United States of the Prime Minister of Great Britain travels around the country, either his daughter's marriage or whatever it is that's got to be announced, that's his personal matter but he uses his press secretary to put out the news. If that is an abuse of the government, it makes this government less of an upright government, that's for Dr Chee to make the point to the public at the next elections. Let me point out to Dr Chee, we are thinking people and we always consider the consequences of what we do. You asked yesterday whether we are out to make you further bankrupt? So what is the purpose? Let me give you the explanation. You may believe that being a bankrupt does not mean anything but then you're a political juvenile. Mr JB Jeyaretnam knows there two ways in which you can overturn the government. One, constitutionally. The other, illegally and violently. If you want to have any influence, you must get into parliament. You have disqualified yourself, you cannot participate in any elections. As long as you stay in that sterile state, muted yourself politically in the constitutional way and by every further action, the damages go up on you, the longer the number of years you will be disqualified. And Mr Jeyaretnam knew that and he found the resources to pay up and settle his bankruptcy so that he can come back because he knows unless he's qualified, he's not within the constitutional process. Unfortunately, Dr Chee, you have not seen the point.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, may I ask you right now. Whilst you said that I think it's prefectly alright to be a bankrupt. I'm telling you, right now, you don't know what it means to be a bankrupt. I have three young children to take care of. I'm not complaining to you. I will take care of my own affairs. But for you to tell me right now that I should then work to pay off these debts that I owe you, it's disingenuous to say the least because that's what you want me to do. You will sue me over and over and over again and continue to make me work to make the money so that I cannot concentrate doing the political work - I haven't finished - to do the political work, to be able overcome this system which you have put in place, a system that is undemocratic, a system that abuses the rule of law, a system to ensure that you and your party perpetuate its hold on political power. I refused to play this game because that is a game that we cannot win. The only way that we can win is when there is a democratic system, when there is a rule of law and when both parties, ruling and opposition, have equal opportunity to reach out to voters and tell them what is best for Singapore and let the voters decide. Everytime I walk into the public and I decide to communicate with them, to sell my newsapaper, to talk to them, you jail me. You tell me where is the sense in all this? I will take whatever you dish out, Mr Lee, because at the end of the day, I know I have right on my side and as long as justice is with me, there is nothing that you can do to me that will make me back off.<br /><br />LKY : That is his credo, your honour. We believe he has got to play by the rules -<br /><br />CSJ : Rules which you have set up. Rules which you keep changing.<br /><br />LKY : Bankrupts being disqualified is a rule that applies in the United Kingdom, it applies in all the countries that have derived their systems from the British so it was a rule which was in place, not one we created. If you're a bankrupt in England, you cannot participate in elections. Therefore, do not become a bankrupt.<br /><br />CSJ : In other words, what you're saying, therefore do not criticise you -<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : That's the difference because do you see Mr Gordon Brown, or Tony Blair, or Mr George Bush suing their political opponents? Whatever is said, your honour, remains in the political realm and at the end of the day, they allow the public to make the decision. That is the difference, Mr Lee. But in the case of Singapore, you continue to ground your opponents in the most undemocratic of ways. If you could, you would have jailed them. You would have jailed them and you would not have allowed them habeas corpus, you would not allow them to come to court -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? What is the question, your honour? Really, we are tired of these political speeches which are empty -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, then I suggest you stop asking the Minister Mentor to continue making these speeches. I'll be happy to comply.<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get a sense of proportion, should understand that this is about question and answer and not about silly speeches which are impressing nobody, your honour. So if Dr Chee wants to ask a qusetion, please do. He'll get the answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I will, your honour.<br /><br />Continues in Part V<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 12:01 PM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Friday, June 06, 2008<br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />The following were transcribed by me from digital audio transcripts obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />This is a much more complete trancript of the two truncated versions posted on SDP's website here and here.<br /><br />It continues from Part ll.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant. If I were -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, you are again dodging the question.<br /><br />Singh : No, he's trying to answer the question.<br /><br />LKY : You have made serious imputations on the intergrity -<br /><br />CSJ : And then you will answer me.<br /><br />Singh : Let him finish.<br /><br />LKY : You have said that we run this government like the NKF. I'm saying that I sued you, as did my son the Prime Minister, on the advice of counsel that we were two persons most damaged because we represented the party. He as Prime Minister and me as founder of the party. I'm not here to answer irrelevant questions. I'm here to get back this question of integrity. What have you got against me which goes to the integrity of this case? I'm here to answer questions as to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I'm trying to get to this point where making the comparison between the running of the NKF versus the running of Singapore. I've made the point repeatedly - running of the NKF is done without transparency, with the top officials in it because there was much importance placed on dollars and cents and that it was an authoritarian system that was being run. And this is where I want to ask you some of these questions that -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, on the NKF as was apparent in the cross-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong, I had said that I had objected to the line of questioning for the simple reason that we are past the stage of liability. Dr Chee had every opportunity during the summary judgement to produce all his evidence, your honour, about the links between the NKF and the Government and the parallels between the NKF and the Government. He had countless adjournments, opportunities were given to him to bring out that evidence so that the matter can go for a trial and Lee Kuan Yew cross-examined. What did he do, your honour? He walked out of the room. No evidence, nothing. And today, when that issue is all over, he's trying to revive it and it's impermissable, your honour, so I object to this entire line of questioning.<br /><br />LKY : May I help the court -<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />LKY : To come to a conclusion as to the purpose of this cross-examination by asking Dr Chee to look at this testimonial and commendation from Transparency International which was given to me and -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, at this stage, I'm not sure about the procedure but this is highly irregular as I -<br /><br />LKY : I've been asked questions that pertains to my integrity although this is about the quantum of damages. I'm pointing out to Dr Chee that regardless of what he had said, and what many others have said in the opposition about the integrity of the Government, Transparency International which you've heard about, has given me this award and they are a very, very strong voice. Read it.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I will take it. I've seen it before. I've read it and I will take it that there is no dispute as far as this document is concerned.<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : Since you brought it up, Mr Lee, let me -<br /><br />LKY : If that is so -<br /><br />CSJ : I think this is my cross-examination. Mr Lee has produced this document and I like to ask him about this -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can it be marked? Can I mark P1, 2, P1, 3? P11 is the document entitled "The Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, Transparency International Malaysia, the Global Integrity Medal is awarded to the Honourable Senior Minister, the Government of the Republic of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in recognition of the successs -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Singh, I think you are running down the time, please. Like I've said already, there's no dispute. Let's take it as marked, your honour. Admit it -<br /><br />Singh : I'm identifying the document. "In recognition of his success as Prime Minister in stamping out corruption in public life and transforming Singapore into an island of integrity in his private and official life, he has exemplified -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, do me a favour, shall we not please go into this. I think Mr Singh wants the media to know of this. I'll be happy to issue them a copy.<br /><br />Singh : Page 1, page 2. I was reading page 1 your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />Singh : At the bottom, your honour. "He has exemplified ..."<br /><br />Davindar Singh spends the next two-and-minutes reading aloud the citation.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I'll be very honest with you. I'm very surprised, I'm not kidding. I'm very surprised that you would come into court with this. You are now clutching at straws. Let me tell you the background of this -<br /><br />LKY : Transparency International is not a straw organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Let me, let me finish -<br /><br />Singh : Let the witness answer please.<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International. You had mentioned Peter Eigen. I was in Sao Paulo. I had lunch with Dr Peter Eigen. He is the President of Transparency International. I asked him, "Did you know about this award?" -<br /><br />Singh : Where is this going? Dr Chee seems to be giving evidence -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you have read out -<br /><br />Singh : Sorry, Dr Chee is giving evidence from the Bar of a conversation with someone who is not in court. That is completely inpermissable.<br /><br />CSJ : Peter Eigen told me that he did not authorise Tranparency International Malaysia to give this award to you.<br /><br />Singh : That coming from a person -<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International, it's in my book which you have struck out. My list of documents -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, that coming from a person who has proved according to the witness to be a liar.<br /><br />CSJ : Now, one more time Mr Lee, are you or are you not depending on this document to show your integrity in this courtroom? I remind you one more time that you need a lot more than this. I can tell you that this award is not worth the paper that it's written on.<br /><br />LKY: We are also judged by PERC, we also judged by IMD, World Economic Forum and a whole host of other rating agencies.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Are you including International Commission Jurists? Are you including Human Rights Watch? Are you including Amnesty International? Are you including Committee to Project Journalists? Are you including International Federation for Free Exchange? Are you including Southeast Asia Press Alliance? Are you including World Movement for Democracy? Are you including Human Rights Defenders? Are you including World Forum for Democratisation in Asia? Are you including National Endowment for Democracy? Are you including Liberal International? Tell me you cited four, I cited you at least ten. Mr Lee. So do me a favour, let us not pick and choose at what endorsements you get because overall if you're trying to show me that your standing in the world is that high you wouldn't be clutching at straws and producing something from Tunku Aziz. I had a conversation with him -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, what is the question?<br /><br />CSJ: The question is why is Mr Lee depending on such a slipshop - when it is not a verifiable - if you come and tell me that you have been awarded the Nobel Prize I would accept it because that has been vetted. Tell me, who is in this organisation called Transparency International Malaysia? Tell me who are the officer here and when they make awards such as these, what vetting process do they go through?<br /><br />Singh: Can we ask the cross examiner if he has a question? If he has not and he wants to make a speech and maybe for the next one hour left he can make his political speech. If he has no more questions for the witness he should say so.<br /><br />CSJ: Your Honour, my question is this: Mr Lee has brought this ridiculous piece of paper and tells me that he is depending on this to prove his reputation. I'm asking him, does this plaintiff know who is behind this Transparency International Malaysia?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honor, the man is on the Internet and the organisation is also on the website. They asked me in a private letter if I would receive this letter. They were wanting to score a point that it is possible to have in Southeast Asia a clean government. I agreed and I assume he would not sign a document citing TI which rates us always among the top 5 unless it had been authorised to do so. And now you are saying that he is liar, that he has falsely attributed this paragraph to Dr Eigen. Well then I say if you brought Dr Eigen here with an affidavit, then you can demolish Mr Adnan (should be Aziz) but not demolish me because I do not depend on Transparency International. I'm just putting this as an example of what PERC, IMD -<br /><br />CSJ: But we haven't got the records of PERC, IMD and so in line with what Mr Singh said, let's dispense with it. Because if you did, you would produce them.<br /><br />LKY: Ha. The simple answer really is between the competing NGOs, one for HR, one for liberal ideas of how governments should be and rating agencies concerned with actual assessment of government performance - where do investors put their money in. Have not put their money in?If you study the World Bank and IMF reports in countries which are unable and corrupt -<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're deliberately running down the clock. Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />LKY: You are asking me this question -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me pose this question. You had mentioned the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! The witness, continue, finish -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! I would like to hear this witness. Please continue.<br /><br />LKY: There are liberal organisations which disagree with the way Singapore runs its social system but we believe we know better. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, otherwise we wouldn't have this courtroom, otherwise you wouldn't be able to be living in an HDB flat. That's the final test.<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're making this leap of logic that even Bruce Hawking would find it hard to follow. You are saying that without you without this entire government, we wouldn't be here? A little presumptuous, don't you think?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I'm saying -<br /><br />CSJ: You see, Mr Lee, in Hong Kong people thrive without you and your system, in Taiwan people thrive without you and your system, in Korea people thrive without you and your system, and you are coming to this court and telling me that what we have right now is all because of you and your system that you have created. I think you are making too much of a presumption.<br /><br />Singh : He should not be afraid of the answers, your honour. He should allow the answers.<br /><br />CSJ : I would like some parity in being able to have this exchange.<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can the witness be allowed to answer the question because Dr Chee has already asked the question. The witness was answering the question.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, my question right now is this - Mr Lee, you have cited Political Economic Risk Consultancy.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes.<br /><br />Judge : If you asked a question, I presume you want an answer.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour, let me continue with my next question.<br /><br />Singh : The witness has not completed the answer to the earlier question. Now, unless Dr Chee withdraws the question or says he's afraid of the answer, the witness should be allowed to complete.<br /><br />Judge : Yes, please complete your answer.<br /><br />LKY : There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel, but it is a system that have. And you have cited Taiwan, Hong Kong, in which case I ask you to remember that the President of Taiwan, after visiting Singapore earlier this year, said he admires Singapore and he wants Taiwan to become like Singapore, corruption-free. You have raised it. If you like, before these proceedings end, I will find the quote and give it to you. And you have also read, you must have read, you read voraciously, what Premier Wen Jiabao has told Mr Donald Tsang after he came to Singapore. He says, " Please go to Singapore and see what they are doing."<br /><br />CSJ : Now Mr Lee..<br /><br />LKY : And now may I add that the Hong Kong governor Sir Murray MacLehose, came to Singapore to study our anti-corruption laws and our anti-corruption system with the CPIB and he went back to Hong Kong and instituted similar system, and cleaned up the corruption that was seeping Hong Kong society. That is the integrity of Singapore and if we failed on that, the Government should be prosecuted and ousted.<br /><br />CSJ: Is this the same integrity that you are referring to when your government in 1963 arrested all your political opponents under Operation Coldstore?<br /><br />Davinder Singh rises to object.<br /><br />Dr Chee (turning to Mr Singh): Let him answer, he wants to answer.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />Singh: Thank you, Your Honour.<br /><br />CSJ : He wants to talk about integrity and I want to talk about integrity. Let's talk about integrity, Mr Lee. Is this the same integrity as you are referring to when you jailed Mr Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, when you imprisoned Dr Lim Hock Siew for 17 years..<br /><br />Singh : I object, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : And when depriving them all –<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />LKY : May I just point out that the final test is what Singapore was when I became Prime Minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now. We had less that a $100 million in the kitty. Today, between the GIC, Temasek and all the assets that we have. I'm not disclosing this but Global Financial Services assessed Singapore's sovereign wealth fund at over US$300 billion.<br /><br />CSJ : And -<br /><br />LKY : And had we not run such a government, we wouldn't have had these funds nor would we have the strength to defend the Singapore dollar whatever the speculators do nor would we have the infrastructure that we have including this court where we offer people like Dr Chee the luxury of all the facilities including digital transcripts that come up as the proceedings go on.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, my problem with this -<br /><br />LKY : These are the manifestations -<br /><br />CSJ : Sure -<br /><br />LKY : Of the basic policy. Let me finish. You've asked me and I'm pointing out that final test is not Transparency International, PERC, IMD, IMF but the solid actions, the solid results of the lives of the people and what Singapore is, and what you're trying to do is to demolish it.<br /><br />CSJ : That is complete nonsense.<br /><br />LKY : And have the corruption that exist in other places.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, let me take you back. I've told you already. What you are saying is that what you have done - the arrests of all your political opponents, the closing down of an independent and free media, all your shenanigans including making sure that I'm not allowed to get up on stage during an election rally, my party's rally, and what you've done, increasing the election deposit, by introducing the GRC - You are saying that all that is justified because now $3 billion -<br /><br />LKY : $300 billion dollars.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. $300 billion in our kitty, which by the way, I remind you, you will not let the people enjoy its fruits.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />CSJ : You have continue to help -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, these questions are irrelevant. I've already indicated that they are not to be pursued in this courtroom. This is not the proper forum. There is no requirement for the witness to answer the question. Move on please.<br /><br />Continues in Part lV<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Read also :<br /><br />David Vs Goliath In Court<br /><br />Restrictions Follow Critics To Cyberspace<br /><br />What Is Chee Soon Juan's Game Plan?<br /><br />US blogger released on bail in Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 5:32 PM 1 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, June 02, 2008<br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"And if you go over the line, if you defame us, we're prepared to sue you, go into the witness box and be cross-examined. You can brief the best lawyers and demolish us. If I'm involved, I go to the witness box. And you can question me, not only on the particular defamatory issue, but all issues in my life."<br /><br />- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Time Magazine, Dec 2005 <br /><br /><br />The following exchange was first posted on SDP website here. The transcript is based on the digital audio recordings obtained from the High Court. Again, as a watcher in the public gallery that day, I can attest that they are true.<br /><br />I will post as much of the available transcripts here for purpose of future reference. Suffice to say it is unlikely that such an encounter will ever take place again in the Singapore courts, or for that matter, in any venue open to public scrutiny.<br /><br />Meanwhile, US lawyer Gopalan Nair was arrested by the police in his Serangoon Road hotel on Saturday night and will be charged in court today.<br /><br />Latest : Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin have been sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively for contempt of court. The sentences were meted out by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, who also presided over the defamation hearings. The Chees are expected to file appeals on Wednesday.<br /><br />And according to this reuters report, Gopalan Nair will be detained for the next 7 days pending further investigations.<br /><br />For updates of Gopalan Nair's arrest and detention, visit his lawyer's blog.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: (pause)...Sorry?<br /><br />CSJ: We get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: I thought we've met many other times across election rallies.<br /><br />CSJ: Your memory fails you. I've never met you before and you know why? Because you keep avoiding me. (Mr Lee laughs) Well, we have this opportunity right now. Let me ask you this question. You gave an interview saying: "If you defame us, and if I'm involved, I go to the the witness box and you can question me not only on the particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life." Do you stand by your words?<br /><br />LKY: I do.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. In the course of the cross-examination, will you then answer questions not just on this particular defamation issue, but on all issues in your life -- and I don't mean your personal life, I mean your political life? Will you stand by that?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, we appeared in court when the issue was whether or not the summary judgment was proper. That was the time to challenge --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, that was not my question.<br /><br />Judge: Allow the witness to answer. Mr Lee, please go on.<br /><br />LKY: I have to answer. I'm a lawyer. I no longer practice the law. I know your purpose. You dodged that occasion and you're trying -- Dr Chee is trying today when the issue is the question of quantum of damages, it's not liability. I'm here to answer questions relating to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ: Thank you. Then why is it that you say you will go to the witness box --<br /><br />LKY: I have already explained that, Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: -- and answer questions not just particular to this defamation issue but on all issues of your life. Now tell me, are those just brave words meant for public consumption and in this situation right now you're turning tail and running?<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha, no Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Then you won't mind me asking you why is it that you make this application to cut short your cross-examination precisely when you walk in at noon and say that you have to be stopped in the cross-examination by 2:15 giving me. the defence, only two hours and fifteen minutes, and then insisting that all of us can't go for lunch. And on top of that refusing to tell the court what this "important matter" you have this afternoon is.<br /><br />LKY: That's...Your Honour...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: I'm lost for words too as I think you are right now.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause; Mr Lee was seen opening his mouth to answer but no words came out)<br /><br />CSJ: Go ahead, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: No answer? That settles the question then.<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ: Fine, let Mr Lee continue. I'm just waiting. He's probably lost for words because he doesn't quite know what to say at this stage.<br /><br />Judge: If you keep interrupting the witness...Yes, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(even longer pause)<br /><br />CSJ: Please don't run down the clock. I've only got a few minutes.<br /><br />At this stage, Mr Davinder Singh jumped in to bail out Mr Lee. <br /><br />Singh: What is the question? Dr Chee has made so many points in his speech. He has already been told that the time to cross-examine the witness was during the summary judgment. If he had leave to defend. All issues would have been open for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that Dr Chee had dodged that application and is now trying through the back door to introduce impermissible material. The witness said he is here as he said to answer questions on quantum. Dr Chee should really get on with the issue of quantum.<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask the question again. Mr Lee, you have said that you are here to answer these questions and I say that in that case why did you make an application to, halfway through the session, want the court to cut short this entire hearing. Now, I remind you that we have got until the end of tomorow, the end of tomorrow. So we have one-and-a-half days. But you insist that we have to finish by 2:15 for you to attend to some matters that you won't even reveal to the court. Now I ask you now does this sound like somebody who's willing to come to court and meet and resolve the issues?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I had a message from one of my counsel's aides to say that I should be in court by here 2 o'clock - by 12 o'clock because Your Honour has imposed a guillotine that the cross-examination of the prime minister would end at twelve. So I turn up at twelve. I was told that the guillotine allowed - had already been late he would be given 2 hours. I suggest - I asked my counsel to request the court to finish this two hours so that I can attend to some important matters. There's no disadvantage to anybody to be sitting here and finishing off this cross-examination within the two hours. What I do not want to be a party to is a deliberate abuse of the process, of the proceedings of the court by delaying tactics.<br /><br />CSJ: So, Mr Lee --<br /><br />LKY: And by asking irrelevant questions, Dr Chee is running out the gullotine. At the end of the day, we've had this confrontation face to face have you thrown any dirt, have you dug up any scandal? Are you still saying as you've said before that this government is run like the NKF?<br /><br />CSJ: Now, Mr Lee, let me try to --<br /><br />LKY: No, we are here because you have said that --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, I'm going to ask you this question and I wish you'd just stick to the questions that I pose to you. I'm asking you why did you come to court --<br /><br />LKY: Because I was asked --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me rephrase my question. Are you telling the court that you had nothing to do with the curtailment of this entire process?<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, I made the application this morning and Your Honour would remembers that I said I was very troubled with what the Chees did yesterday and that it was quite apparent that they had nothing to ask which was of any relevance and that unfortunately or otherwise has been proven in this exchange. And I said, Your Honour, that the whole purpose of the cross-examination was to insult, annoy and to scandalise and that's also been proven true. For that reason, I had asked that there be a guillotine. Your Honour had full powers to control the proceedings. The order has already been made and I don't see why this witness should be asked to explain something that was the subject of my application and Your Honour's order.<br /><br />CSJ: Do you see the game that's being played here, Mr Lee? Do you see how you are beginning to hide behind your counsel and then claim, "Look, I'm willing to confront them. It's my counsel." Now I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Right here, right now, tell Mr Davnder Singh "Don't interrupt. I will answer these questions as they are put to me right now."<br /><br />LKY: Heh-heh. Your Honour, I've briefed counsel, I've always found it's never wise to be my own lawyer in my own case. I know that some perople believe that they can do otherwise, and I'm quite sure that Dr Chee is making a very great impression on all the reporters in this court of how he is better than Mr Ravi --<br /><br />CSJ: I think you meant Mr Singh.<br /><br />LKY: I believe Mr Singh is better qualified to deal with the legalities of this case.<br /><br />CSJ: Well, I should hope so with all the training that he's got. Now, coming back to my question, Mr Lee, is your answer no, that you wll not tell Mr Singh: "Stay out of this. Let me answer my question because --<br /><br />LKY: I --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me finish my question -- because you have said -- and I repeat to you -- that you will answer not only questions about the "particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life."<br /><br />LKY: Yes...as long as that was what was an issue and that was the, it was an issue in the summary judgement was appealed against. [Note how garbled the answer is.] And we turned up for the hearing but you dodged the hearing.<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, you are not unintelligent.<br /><br />LKY: Thank you.<br /><br />CSJ: You knew precisely what you meant and what you mean is: "Come and ask me all these questions that doesn't pertain to this defamation suit and I will answer you because my entire standing, inlcuding the standing of this government, is at stake." Is that not correct?<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:24 AM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 31, 2008<br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br /><br /><br />The following excerpts of court transcripts were first posted on SDP's website here and here. I was in the public gallery when the exchange took place so I can testify that they are true. I am posting them here again for sake of posterity.<br /><br />If you don't know the background of this case, read this, this, this and this. Meanwhile, another member of the public gallery that day, Gopalan Nair - a former dissident who has since taken up US citizenship - has issued a challenge to PM Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee Kuan Yew to sue him for libel. Read his account of the trial here.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Chee (to Lee Hsien Loong): Would you refer to pg 192 of your AEIC, para 3 and read it to us.<br /><br />Mr Lee Hsien Loong starts reading. Just before he gets to the words he uttered about fixing the opposition and buying over his supporters, Mr Davinder Singh stands up.<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: I’ll read it.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, you read it.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee please tell us the relevance.<br /><br />Chee: This paragraph will show it's true of him -<br /><br />Judge Move on, the question is disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: He has used words like "fix" and "buy votes". He's here to tell me that his reputation is based on so much. I’m here to demolish it, when he buys votes -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Let it be recorded then. Mr Lee, come out and don’t hide behind your counsel. You have every opportunity to answer the questions. You allow your counsel to cover -<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: Court has taken note of Dr Chee’s conduct.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, please refer to pg 39 of your AEIC sub-heading "lack of transparency." Do you agree with the last line and last paragraph that the GIC operates in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection. Dr Chee is seeking to reopen the issue. This article relates to the offending words. The meaning has been taken to be false. The question of liability is done.<br /><br />Chee: Turn then to pg 75 of your AEIC, bottom of the page. Is the Government transparent? Do you agree with this statement?<br /><br />Singh: I object.<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Do you believe the funds belongs to the people?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Same line and reason, that he is the Prime Minister and takes pride in the integrity -<br /><br />Singh: The question is on the matter of Assesment of Damages -<br /><br />Judge: Move on, Dr Chee.<br /><br />Chee: You are the Deputy or the Vice Chairman of the GIC?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: I want to establish that he says his reputation is sterling -<br /><br />Singh: My client didn’t say that.<br /><br />Judge: Yes.<br /><br />Chee: How and where you have invested the GIC funds?<br /><br />Judge: Move on.<br /><br />Chee: Were you aware of the scandal at NKF -<br /><br />Singh: Relevancy? NKF is a matter of liability.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: Then you agree that T T Durai's salary was excessive?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree the salary -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, my client was not aware of the NKF scandal -<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: If T T Durai had a summary judgement -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the openness of the Government -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: I disagree as the witness was a Prime Minister during the period and argued in Parliament -<br /><br />Singh: Maybe the Health Ministry was misled and my client did not know. The Government did proceed to investigate the matter.<br /><br />Chee: The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health made comments and continued leading the people to donate to the NKF. You were the Prime Minister -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: Did you know the warning signals -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: These were raised in Parliament and whether he was sleeping like some of his colleagues -<br /><br />Singh: That is not necessary and insulting -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, move on.<br /><br />Singh: I want to remind Dr Chee of the injunction against repeating -<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree if the salary is too much?<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Do you think that your Ministers spend too much -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: I put to you that the PAP is bent on greed and power.<br /><br />Singh Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee Refer to pg 9 of your AEIC. Is the information on the cost of labour of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Is information on the cost of material of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the HDB is operating in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:48 PM 8 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, May 19, 2008<br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Go to one-nation-under-lee.org to watch or download all available formats of the video.<br /><br />Directed by Seelan Palay under Honest Productions.<br /><br />___________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Singapore to Dissident Leader: Shut Up<br /><br />The senior Lee, now the “minister mentor,” who served as Singaporean prime minister from 1969 to 1990, once won extra damages from a Singaporean judge for what the judge considered too rigorous a cross-examination by a defense lawyer.<br /><br />As an example of how prickly the 84-year-old Lee and his government can be, last Saturday, officials from the Media Development Authority, which regulates the media and censors films for public broadcast, descended on a room in the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel where about 70 opposition figures were holding a fundraising event and private screening of a 45-minute film of titled “One Nation Under Lee,” which is critical of the former premier’s rise to power and subsequent crackdown on his opponents. The officials seized the DVD.<br /><br />Read full article here.<br />______________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Libel case shows Singapore's limits<br /><br />Another opposition party would then disappear from the scene, joining a long list of previous challengers to Lee's dominance of Singapore politics since he became its prime minister in 1959.<br /><br />The list is handily presented in a new 45-minute documentary video by activist Seelan Pillay, One Nation Under Lee, which can be viewed on a number of websites and blogs, including one called Singabloodypore.<br /><br />A private screening at the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel in Singapore last Saturday was interrupted by three officials from the Media Development Authority, who seized the DVD and equipment, after warning that under the Films Act it was an offence "to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate".<br /><br />Full article here.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Singapore authorities confiscate film on Minister Mentor at private screening<br /><br />22 May 2008<br />Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Bangkok<br /><br />Singapore authorities attempted to stop a private screening of a critical film on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 17 May 2008, alleging that the screening violated the Films Act, according to news reports.<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act forbids the screening of a film that has not been vetted by the censors, punishing violators with a maximum fine of S$40,000 (approx. US$29,428), or jail term of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />Three officers from the Media Development Authority (MDA), claiming they were acting on a "tip-off", went to the hotel where the film, "One nation under Lee", was being premiered and requested for the disc, alleging that it has not been vetted by the censors.<br /><br />The night before the screening, the Board of Film Censors had warned the organisers of the offence they would be committing under the law if they had not submitted the film for approval.<br /><br />The 45-minute film is produced and directed by artist/activist Seelan Palay. It documents former premier Lee's rise to power through a host of restrictive measures on civil liberties, criticises the economic and political governance of the ruling party and pays tribute to the efforts of activists and citizens who persist in claiming and exercising their democratic rights. The film is available online here.<br /><br />The MDA officers claimed that the action was a matter of compliance and not an objection to the content of the film. Yet, when organiser Chee Siok Chin, a leading member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, argued that the broad terms of the law would also subject such censorship to every wedding dinner that showed videos of the happy couple, one of the officials said, "This is not the same as a wedding dinner", clearly showing otherwise.<br /><br />The MDA officials later brought in plainclothes officers in an attempt to hold the organisers for obstruction of justice. They left, however, when Chee agreed to hand over the film as the screening had fortunately ended by then.<br /><br />However, the officials returned moments later for the projector, they were faced with a spirited refusal by the organisers and the 70-strong audience, who insisted they had no right to the equipment. A recording of what transpired is available here.<br /><br />The authorities are reportedly investigating the screening.<br /><br />The Singapore government has long maintained a tight rein on free expression in the country, allegedly in the interest of maintaining public order and social harmony in the tiny city-state of 4.6 million people. The local media are controlled through ownership, while foreign media and the opposition leaders are given a beating in the courts through successful civil defamation suits, sending a chilling message to the citizens. Even so, pockets of civil society continue to find creative ways of claiming their right to expression, from holding demonstrations of one to four (the law imposes a permit for gatherings of five or more, which is often refused to the opposition) and expressing themselves through the arts.<br /><br /><br />Singapore probes political film on Lee Kuan Yew<br /><br />SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's media regulator is investigating the screening of a political film that an opposition party said critically examines the city-state's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br />The film, "One Nation Under Lee", was made by a group of political activists and looks at the rise of Lee and his relationship with the media, Chee Siok Chin, a senior member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), told Reuters.<br /><br />It was screened to an audience of about 70 at an opposition party fundraising event last week, before Singapore's media regulator interrupted the showing and took the film, said Chee, the event organiser.<br /><br />"After investigation, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) proceeded to serve a notice to the appropriate person that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition," Tan Chiu Kee of the BFC said in a statement late on Tuesday, adding that a copy had been handed to officials.<br /><br />Singapore, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party (PAP) for over 40 years, bans the production and screening of all political films, imposing a maximum fine of S$100,000 ($73,260) or a jail term of two years on those caught.<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew, 84, is credited with policies that have been critical to making Singapore one of the region's most prosperous countries, but has been criticised by human rights groups for his use of lawsuits against political opponents and the media.<br /><br /><br />Film seized by censors after organisers went ahead with screening despite being warned<br /><br />The Straits Times, Singapore<br />by Sue-Ann Chia<br /><br />A 45-MINUTE film portraying Singapore as lacking in press and political freedoms is under investigation by the Board of Film Censors (BFC).<br /><br />Titled One Nation Under Lee, the film was being screened to an audience of about 70 at the Peninsula Excelsior Hotel last Saturday when officials from the BFC turned up to seize the film.<br /><br />Organisers of the screening, led by Ms Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party, argued it was a private event, but BFC officials said they had been tipped off that the film had not been passed by the censors and they had the right to investigate.<br /><br />The police were called in when negotiations hit a stalemate.<br /><br />Ms Chee eventually let BFC officials into the room and handed over the film.<br /><br />The altercation was filmed and put online on video-sharing site YouTube.<br /><br />Guests paid $20 each to attend the screening-cum-lunch, said Mr Martyn See, a film-maker who was in the audience.<br /><br />Produced by 23-year-old political activist Seelan Palay, the film depicts a Singapore tightly controlled by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and includes a call for civil disobedience.<br /><br />It also includes interviews with former political detainee Said Zahari and opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam.<br /><br />Ms Chee told The Straits Times: 'It seems bizarre that the authorities would come to this private event. At a wedding, they don't expect people to send in their videos being screened for classification. What's the difference here?'<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act makes it an offence to exhibit a film that has not been approved for exhibition. The penalty is a fine of up to $40,000, or jail of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />BFC assistant licensing officer Tan Chiu Kee said yesterday it was alerted last Thursday to the forthcoming screening of One Nation Under Lee.<br /><br />As no film of that title had been submitted for classification, and the BFC had not issued any certificate for a film with that title, it launched an investigation, and later issued a warning to the 'appropriate person'.<br /><br />Ms Chee confirmed that a BFC official told her of the offence at 9pm last Friday.<br /><br />Still, the screening proceeded the next day. So BFC officials went to the event to investigate, said Mr Tan.<br /><br />'The persons connected with the event had chosen to disregard the BFC's notices...that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition,' said Mr Tan, adding that investigations are continuing.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:20 AM 7 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screening <br />Part l<br /><br /><br /><br />Part ll<br /><br /><br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:10 AM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 17, 2008<br />Censors and police seize video at private screening <br />Complete videos of the seized film and the seizing have been uploaded. Go to main page.<br /><br /><br />Censorship enforcement in Singapore sank to a new low today as officers from the Board of Film Censors (a department of the MDA) turned up at Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel's Tulip Room to demand that organisers of a film screening hand over the video for classification.<br /><br />The invitation for the screening of "One Nation Under Lee" had been circulated via email with the explicit note that it was to be a private function. Still, the BFC delivered a letter to the Singapore Democratic Party's office last night, warning the organisers that Section 14 of Films Act requires all films (and the Act do mean ALL videos, including those stored on your mobile phone) to be submitted to the Board for classification.<br /><br />Undeterred, the organisers pressed on with the screening today. Just before it began at 2pm, officers from the Board of Film Censors showed up at the door to serve the reminder. Still, the 45 minute video was screened in its entirety, interrupted periodically by raised voices outside the hall. Apparently, plainclothes police officers were called in to seize the video as the organisers had refused to budge.<br /><br />Just as the screening ended, BFC officers were ushered into the hall, given microphones and were told to explain to the audience, numbering about 80, about their intentions. They didn't use the PA system, but were heard uttering something about wanting to seize the video, which were eventually given to them. Minutes later, another government officer came in, muttering about wanting to see the projector. After being repeatedly told that he could not, he left in a puff.<br /><br />The film itself was surprisingly slick and compelling but the off-screen drama was the highlight for me. Life imiatates art, and vice versa. All in all, a pretty entertaining afternoon.<br /><br />I'm sure there'll be photos, videos and more reports coming up soon about today's drama. Check back for link updates.<br /><br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />Film on Lee Kuan Yew seized by MDA<br /><br />Government officials disrupt private screening of film on LKY<br /><br />Pictures here<br /><br />The gatecrashers<br /><br />MDA没收私人放映录像<br /><br />This is Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 6:52 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Older Posts Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Videos<br />One Nation Under Lee <br />Speakers Cornered <br />Nation Builders <br />Zahari's 17 Years (banned) <br />Singapore Rebel (banned) <br />Riot police vs four silent protesters <br />Said Zahari's Book Launch <br />Speakers Cornered teaser <br />Contact<br />singapore_rebel{at}yahoo.com <br />Blogs that promote Asian Values<br />Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy <br />International Campaign for Tibet <br />Secret Tibet <br />Students for a free Tibet <br />Truth about China <br />China e-Lobby <br />Malaysia Today <br />Jeff Ooi, Malaysia <br />Tian Chua, Malaysia <br />Elizabeth Wong, Malaysia <br />Infernal Ramblings. Malaysia <br />Indonesia Matters <br />Burma Digest <br />Burma Underground <br />Ki Media, Cambodia <br />Southeast Asian Press Alliance <br />Politics from Taiwan <br />Taiwan Matters <br />View from Taiwan <br />Rebecca MacKinnon <br />For a Democratic Nepal <br />North Korea zone <br />Angry Chinese Blogger <br />Glutter, HK <br />Local Voices<br />Singabloodypore <br />The Online Citizen <br />Singapore Daily <br />Singapore Surf <br />Yawning Bread <br />Mr Wang <br />Sg Review yahoo group <br />Sg Politics <br />Pseudonymity <br />My sketchbook <br />Molly Meek <br />Singapore Election Watch <br />Singapore Alternatives <br />Sg Review <br />Singapore Dissident <br />Singapore Window <br />The Orchid Revolution <br />Movie links<br />Cinema showtimes <br />Sinema Sg <br />SIFF <br />Sg Film forum <br />Blog Archive<br />▼ 2008 (21) <br />▼ June (4) <br />Transcript part V : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br />► May (5) <br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screen... <br />Censors and police seize video at private screenin... <br />Filmmaker submits six videos featuring political p... <br />► April (6) <br />Singapore Government's biggest blockbuster since 1... <br />Speakers Cornered rated NC16 by censors <br />An open invitation to political bloggers <br />Gay Muslim filmmaker calls Singapore's regime "alm... <br />Censors ban four foreign films <br />Activists screen political films in "private funct... <br />► March (2) <br />Rebels of the Malaysian political tsunami <br />The greatest jailbreak, or the boldest story ever ... <br />► February (3) <br />Censorship under the PAP : 1959 - 2008 <br />Film ban hurts Singapore's press freedom <br />Film fest disqualifies Martyn See's film <br />► January (1) <br />This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br />► 2007 (39) <br />► December (3) <br />Twice banned filmmaker submits third film <br />Videos : Singaporean lawyers petition; Malaysian l... <br />Speakers Cornered - Complete video now unleashed <br />► November (2) <br />Video : Burmese citizens mount protest on Orchard ... <br />Singapore police abducts activists in daylight <br />► October (5) <br />One Country, Two Systems - Part ll <br />Videos of bloody crackdown in Burma <br />One Country, Two Systems <br />Guard dogs of St. Martin's Drive <br />Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in ... <br />► September (5) <br />By George, do you have blood on your hands? <br />Martyn See speaks out on police probe, foreign "in... <br />Banned film to screen in Johor Bahru <br />Singaporean works feature in Malaysian human right... <br />Said Zahari's book available in Singapore <br />► August (1) <br />Nation Builders - A new video by Martyn See <br />► July (4) <br />The Long Nightmare - Foreward excerpts <br />Don't shade the past, tell it like it is, says LKY... <br />Founding PAP member and ex-political prisoner to p... <br />Video : Said Zahari launches book <br />► June (3) <br />Former political prisoner Said Zahari to launch bo... <br />'Singapore You Are Not My Country' <br />They came first for the communists ... <br />► May (1) <br />"Marxist Conspiracy" arrests - 20 years on <br />► April (7) <br />Film ban "ineffective and counter-productive" <br />RSF urges Singapore to lift ban <br />All this censorship makes no sense : MM Lee <br />'Zahari's 17 Years' now online <br />Film ban strange, says Said Zahari <br />► Martyn See <br />I'm a Singaporean who survived 15 months of police investigation for the making of banned short film 'Singapore Rebel', deemed to be an illegal political film under the law. Has since followed up with 'Zahari's 17 Years', a documentary on an ex-political detainee, and 'Speakers Cornered', a chronology of brief scenes from a street corner standoff between pro-democracy activists and the police. Otherwise, he is mostly a law-abiding Singaporean video editor. Feature editing credits include Mee Pok Man (1994, Eric Khoo) That One No Enough (2000, Jack Neo) I Do I Do (2005, Wen Hui, Jack Neo) Singapore Gaga (2005,Tan Pin Pin) Just Follow Law (2007, Jack Neo) <br />"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955 <br /><br />If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955 <br /><br />"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."<br /><br />- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956<br /><br />_________________________________________________________________<br /><br />The final instalment of the courtroom clash between Lee Kuan Yew and Chee Soon Juan. Transcript courtesy of yours truly. Continues from Part lV. <br /><br />CSJ : You had mentioned, Mr Lee, that there were two ways of gaining political power. You had said something about being not a bankrupt so that you can stand for elections and then the other method you said was through constitutional means, through -<br /><br />LKY : Through unconstitutional means.<br /><br />CSJ : The other way? No, I think you meant through constitutional means.<br /><br />Singh : If Dr Chee would stop talking and start listening, he would have heard that what the witness said was either do it be constitutional means, i.e through parliament by not being a bankrupt or violently, illegally.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. I appreciate your assistance on this matter. I agree. I completely agree with you, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : May I -<br /><br />CSJ : That constitutional means is the way to go -<br /><br />Singh : No, no, no -<br /><br />CSJ : But the funny thing, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? It's not whether it's a funny thing or not. The only thing funny with (inaudible) are the speeches coming out -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can I ask for a ruling that Dr Chee (inaudible) the questions because in the last -<br /><br />CSJ : The constitution allows us freedom of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : And you have completely butchered all that!<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, the last question, if that can be a question, is completely irrelevant as far as this court is concerned. I've already said those sort of questions are not for this courtroom. He's here to assess to the damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Point taken, your honour. And this is what I'm trying to derive at -<br /><br />Judge : Now 2.40. I've given you the indulgence. I don't know if Miss Chee wishes to ask questions. I assume you are eating into her time.<br /><br />CSJ : All that I'm saying right now is, your honour, Mr Lee has made this point that to gain political power there are certain rules and those rules are set in the constitution. And I'm saying that I agree with it. Those rules were not written by me. Those rules were written by the British, and which Mr Lee agreed to. Now in one of those rules there, it says citizens of Singapore are guaranteed the freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question?<br /><br />CSJ : Right now, why is Mr Lee changing those rules? Because when I begin to exercise these freedoms of speech and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : If that's the question, the witness will answer the question.<br /><br />CSJ : We get arrested. Tell us right now, are you up for a free and fair fight during elections?<br /><br />LKY : I do not know -<br /><br />CSJ : In a constitutional manner.<br /><br />LKY : There is nothing to hinder an opposition party in Singapore from -<br /><br />CSJ : I beg your pardon. There's everything that will hinder an opposition party.<br /><br />LKY : The SDP was doing very well under Chiam See Tong and at one time captured three seats and it became the de-facto leader. You came in and destroy the SDP -<br /><br />CSJ : Don't change subject, Mr Lee. Don't change the subject.<br /><br />LKY : As a result, because you had destroyed the standing of the SDP, the Workers' Party has become the de-facto leader of the opposition. That's an open con-(inaudible). The Workers' Party has won the elections, Mr Chiam in his personal capacity has continually and repeatedly won the elections without defaming anybody.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I talk about -<br /><br />LKY : Low Thia Kiang has not defame anybody, not defame the government, neither has Chiam See Tong and they have won successive by-elections but you have lost successively because we have disproved to the people that you are not to be believed.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I ask you about freedoms of speech, assembly-<br /><br />LKY : That is the whole purpose of this exchange in this court -<br /><br />CSJ : When I ask you about the freedoms of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />LKY : We have heard all that -<br /><br />CSJ : I don't just mean political parties. I mean citizens of Singapore. Even a citizen of this country who is not a member of a political party has the right to freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : And the question is, your honour?<br /><br />CSJ : Would you allow these people their rights or are you going to sit there and continue to curtail their rights? Simple answer, Mr Lee, you know -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Disallowed. This is not the court to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You are intelligent. You know what freedom of speech is. You know what freedom of assembly is.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I've already ruled. Please continue with the next question.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, will you allow more than five people to assemble in an public area?<br /><br />LKY : These -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, these rules were in existence before the PAP took office. They have remained on our statute book, or rather in regulations under the statutes.<br /><br />CSJ : And you are saying that these rules before the PAP. Which was the government before the PAP? The British, I assume.<br /><br />LKY : No, before the -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let me ask you. Was the British a colonial government?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Lee, it is not for you to answer that question.<br /><br />CSJ : He's made that point and I'm just clarifying that point. Your honour, you see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : I've already ruled.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, hear me out. Mr Lee makes his point that his party, his government, did not come up with these rules. I say fine. Who came up with these rules then? The British came up with these rules. The point that I want to establish is the British was an undemocratic government. Mr Lee is making my point right now that by continuing these undemocratic rules, Singapore has been governed in a very undemocratic way. And when you govern Singapore in an undemocratic way, you try to tell this court here that my reputation is A-One, you have a problem.<br /><br />LKY : I -<br /><br />CSJ : But if Mr George Bush or Mr Gordon Brown or any leader in the democratic world stands up and says, "if I can garner 80% of the votes", yes, that would be something. But not in a society where you controlled the press, and I remember, Mr Lee, whether you do or not I don't know, but when you said about the -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, how long do we have to listen to this because Dr Chee is not prepared to listen -<br /><br />CSJ : The media, the press, being controlled to the point where they begin to be sycophants -<br /><br />Judge : I've taken (inaudible) of Mr Chee's conduct which I will deal with on Wednesday.<br /><br />Singh : Thank you, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, would you then respond?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer. Question is totally irrelevant to the assessment of damages. I have repeated myself many times.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry?<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45 now.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let's continue on because this is a very important national matter.<br /><br />Judge : Not for this court, Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour -<br /><br />Judge : (inaudible) Take it outside this courtroom. My ruling -<br /><br />CSJ : But, no. Hold on. Wait, wait. Your honour, Mr Lee is saying that his reputation is very important because it is national matter and in that context I'm trying to deal with. If he didn't say that his reputation is of national priority, then there is no issue. But right now, Mr Lee has made that point and Mr Lee has continued to want to defend, then let me then question him as well. (Pause) Mr Lee, you had some point said that the PAP, I take it a lot of times it is you, that said that "we have engineered elections that would make Singaporeans stupid to want to vote us out." What do you mean by that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : We have given Singaporeans something that we've never had before. Singapore society which is now well-educated, 20% of them in tertiary institutions, 40% of them in polytechnics, another 20% in ITE, everybody owns a home, everybody has got proper medical care and everybody is catered for and looked after. If they were not catered for and looked after, they wouldn't have voted for this government to be re-elected. It's as simple as that. The final test is not what Mr Chee says or what I say but the reality on the ground. Have we created Singapore better than 1959? When the Prime Minister goes for elections in a few years time, whether he wins or loses depends on whether the people believe they're worse off or better off. It's as simple as that. This is the acid test.<br /><br />CSJ : Sure, sure, but unfortunately Mr Lee, it is not as simple as that because if you're saying that the acid test is whether people feel they benefited from your system, then why is it, Mr Lee, that even you and the current Senior Minister continue to lament that Singaporeans are leaving Singapore in droves. Let me cite you a statistic that I didn't do the study - it was your press that did it - cited that 50% of young Singaporeans didn't feel that they were patriotic to this country. Can you explain when you say to Singaporeans that you've done so well, provided so much for them, and yet - now you have 50 years, no interruptions, there was never any change in governments in between, so you had an uninterrupted period of rule in Singapore, yet at the end of the road, you come to a situation where your young cannot wait to want to get out when they have a chance and tell you "we don't feel patriotic at all to this country." Have you failed, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I am not aware of this particular survey, how wide it is, and I'm not particularly moved one way or the other. The final test is - are they leaving permanently? Because that's what they can do. We have educated them to a point where those in the top 20% with tertiary qualifications can go to any English-speaking country and find a job. That is the acid test and that goes on all the time.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I am trying to tell that your worry is that they are leaving permanently, they are not coming back, they are even willing to break their bonds because they don't want to continue living in a society which you have created. They don't want to live in this society which they don't feel a sense of belonging. They don't want to live in a society where they have no say, that come elections, everything is railroaded, and they don't have a way that they can pick their leaders.<br /><br />LKY : Therefore, I advise you to find some way, get your NGO supporters, to discharge you from your bankruptcy, then you would be able to campaign against us.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, how do I campaign against you when at every turn of the way, you put a stop to it? One way that I can campaign is through the media. You control it. One way that I can campaign is to get down to the street and talk to voters. You arrest me. One way that I can campaign is through my party's newspaper. You sue us. Tell me, apart from using this word "campaign" in the most frivolous, the most egregious of manner, how do we campaign when you, sitting in the Istana, makes sure opposition parties can never, never compete on an equal footing?<br /><br />LKY : In no country is it the duty of the government to build the opposition. And the fact that opposition leaders can get elected, re-elected and re-elected, despite very riogorous campaigning against them by leaders of the PAP, proves that they know when they decide that they want this man, they will vote for him.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm not asking you to build up the opposition -<br /><br />LKY : I am suggesting to Dr Chee that if he follows the constitutional route, with his eloquence, if he can establish credibility with his eloquence, he has a better chance than Mr Low Thia Kiang or Mr Chiam See Tong. But if he has got no credibility, and the proceedings in the last two days would not have been unnoticed, the press is here, public is here. You have come and try to degrade the proceedings, you have come to make an abuse of the processes of this court. The judge is in charge. The judge knows you can appeal against her judgements. The judge can given you all the opportunities to tie yourself up. That is my reading of what is going on in this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, the opposition has never made the case that you as the ruling party -<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : He has made a point, your honour, and I like to respond. And that is that - you see, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : (inaudible) it fails on all grounds of cross-examination, on irrelevance that really, we've past I think a long time ago, I think just as the cross-examination started, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree - I move on to my next question, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : He's got an answer now and so he cannot challenge that answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree, Mr Lee - are you saying, you telling the courts right now that the government has not hampered the opposition in any way?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee, I do not wish to hear that line of questioning any more -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to make this point -<br /><br />Judge : It is totally irrelevant. What I have to decide on -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour. Let me make this point. Mr Lee has brought up -<br /><br />Judge : One minute more.<br /><br />CSJ : The point that I am asking -<br /><br />Judge : You have one minute to ask the last question.<br /><br />CSJ : The government should make it easy for the opposition and my point is no. All we asking for the government to come to a set of rules -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant. I've already said, Dr Chee. If you wish this line of questioning, do it outside my courtroom!<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour, what I'm trying to tell you is that it goes to his reputation. It's what I'm here for. (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : It's completely irrelevant. I have ruled on this. Dr Chee, if you persist -<br /><br />(Pause)<br /><br />CSJ : If you believe that if the public was to have a free say in the running of this country -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, same objection. You honour has already ruled earlier on the same point. The question is being repeated again and again.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour. It's something - again as I said makes a lot of difference whether Mr Lee - when he says that his reputation is of a certain standard, that he must, he must then have the courage to be able to face reality and not hide behind, take refuge, in a system that has been designed to ensure that the reputation remains up there, regardless of reality.<br /><br />Singh : That was in the affidavit which was struck out, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I think Mr Lee has made an attempt to answer. Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I do not want to waste more of the time of the court that's not relevant to this case but may I add that my reputation has been established over a period of 50 years, 49 years in government, and 4 and a half years as the leader of the opposition.<br /><br />CSJ : All good?<br /><br />LKY : It is not for me to say it is all good or bad.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree that it's a mixture of good and bad?<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />LKY : Will you allow me to - you've asked me for an answer and I am giving it to you but if its not to your liking, I'm sorry, but you will have to hear me out. At the end of the day, my job is done. I've passed power on and I'm just Minister Mentor. I'm a data-bank. I have no purpose then to see that the system which I've set in place continues to the benefit of Singapore, and part of the proceedings, the painful process is to go through this exercise when you have no questions and you're running away from it. Because at the end of the day, it's not just as you pointed out and Mr Ravi as the SDP counsel submitted, it is the wider public. I'm conscious of that. I think sometimes, you are not.<br /><br />CSJ : If you are talking about the wider public, Mr Lee, then you must also realise that -<br /><br />Judge : No more questions.<br /><br />CSJ : The wider public wants you to leave the political stage. Would you agree?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />This marks the end of the of Chee Soon Juan's cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew. The next next defendent, Chee Siok Chin, was only given 10 minutes to query Lee. <br /><br />Next in Part Vl, the full transcript of Chee Siok Chin's earlier cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong. That's a real classic. Do check back.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 4:36 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, June 07, 2008<br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br />More transcript of the cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew by Chee Soon Juan. The transcript is courtesy of yours truly and is based on the digital recodings obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, turn with me to your AEIC. Did you or did you not say that "CSJ harbours a deep-seated hatred for me?"<br /><br />LKY : Yes, I saw that affidavit.<br /><br />CSJ : Good. That's right, okay.<br /><br />LKY : And you are manifesting it in court today.<br /><br />CSJ : On the contrary, Mr Lee, I don't hate you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. I think you cut a pitiable figure but I don't hate you. You see, I think you derive a lot of pleasure from what you do but I don't think that you find any joy in life.<br /><br />Singh : What's the question? Can I ask the witness, can I ask Dr Chee to frame his question?<br /><br />CSJ : For me, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get on with the questions, if he has any. If not he should honourably say "no further questions", your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : The whole entire matter rests because you want to turn this fight into one of a personal duel. I'm not interested. What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy - that is going to last for all eternity.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there. I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary -<br /><br />CSJ : Standards of the MRT or standards of the rule of law?<br /><br />LKY : Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practised throughout the judiciary.<br /><br />CSJ : What about the International Commission of Jurists? Do you have any comment on them?<br /><br />LKY : There are Western organisations who believe you should only progress and become prosperous by being democratic in their particular way, their prescription -<br /><br />CSJ : Is the International Bar Association an Asian organisation?<br /><br />LKY : It is an international organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. So you have international organisation and international organisation. You pick one and you don't pick the other.<br /><br />LKY : No, we pick those who will make Singapore strong and prosperous. We do not follow -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you pick those which will make you look good.<br /><br />LKY : No, on the contrary, if those - the attributes that we go for, meritocracy, integrity, the education of the people, the quality of life of the people, facilities that we give them to advance - if those were missing, then all the indicators will soon turn downhill. One reason why we had allowed this altercation to go on is because we are leaning over backwards to allow you enough rope to tie yourself up, and you have successfully done that.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : You have a guillotine. You know you have the time of two hours and you are wasting it, frittering it because you have nothing of substance to confront me with.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I had dinner with the Executive Director of the International Bar Association and I have correspondence with them as well. At the end of the Rule of Law Symposium which you were referring to, many of the participants came away very unhappy that the International Bar Association had held its meeting here. And I want to remind you that it continues to be a problem and I believe that the International Bar Association is watching this event very closely.<br /><br />LKY : I'm sure they are and if you were present at my address to the International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : No, I was not present because you know why?<br /><br />LKY : You will know that there was an approbation, and not a disapprobation. I don't have to quote private dinner conversations. That was a public event with 3000 international lawyers there.<br /><br />CSJ : Then also tell me -<br /><br />LKY : May I also add that several of them, including Third World countries have come up and asked to see me, including the Governor of Lagos, to ask me if I could go there and address their International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, and Mr Lee, were those the same participants that attended the Rule of Law symposium and when I stood up to speak, when Mr Jayakumar was present, and the Chair wanted to cut me off and when I turned to the audience, and we said about 3000 or so, and I asked them, "Do you want to hear the rest of the story of the other Singapore?", there was loud and susutained applause to the extent that Mr Frank Kneed (check spelling), the Chairman, had no choice but to allow me to continue. Will you then take it that this same group of lawyers had wanted to hear how the law in Singapore has been misused, has been abused, that frankly, there is no rule of law in Singapore.<br /><br />LKY : That's contrary to all the assessments and if you look at the publication, I can't remember the title that the Supreme Court puts out, there's a whole series of assessment made by seven or eight international rating agencies about Singapore. Also may I add the World Bank has recommended and in fact brought many delegations from many countries to study how the judiciary and the judicial system has progressed in Singapore and is now cited as a model.<br /><br />CSJ : Is this the same World Bank that came and said that Singapore had brought this upon itself when it tried to restrict accredited NGO activists, accredited with the World Bank, coming into Singapore and conducting its activities. Is this the same World Bank that you are talking about?<br /><br />LKY : We do not comply with every request being made because there are certain things which we believe we know better.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, but your government has given the World Bank the green light -<br /><br />LKY : No, just a moment, let me finish. You have asked me this question. Let me finish. If the World Bank did not hold Singapore's judicial system in high esteem, it would not have come out with that report nor would they have brought delegations to come and study us.<br /><br />CSJ : That is not my question, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY : And there are endless delegations which have come to study our system -<br /><br />CSJ : That was not my question, Mr Lee. You brought up the World Bank. I'm asking you, that World Bank that came and said that Singapore should have let in these accredited NGOs because, listen very carefully, because the Singapore Government had an agreement with World Bank to let them in and it was upon the very last minute that someone in your cabinet made that decision to say no.<br /><br />LKY : I do not attend to these matters anymore. I'm only the Minister Mentor. I'm not in charge but I do know that we act in accordance with what we think is the best practice for Singapore and when we disagree with a particular prescription of how we should behave, or how we should conduct Singapore, we have to decide whether that is applicable.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand.<br /><br />LKY : And I know that there many liberal NGOs who are extremely uncomfortable that a system in Singapore which does not comply with their prescriptions is still up and standing and thriving.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, Mr Lee, these NGOs were accredited with the World Bank -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I'm going to stop this line of cross-examination. It doesn't get us anywhere on the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Okay, alright, let me move on, you honour. You have a situation where you are again claiming that your integrity is of the highest order, would you agree with that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : That is the position that I have taken the day I took office in June 1959. I spent more than 50 years of, I would say 49 years of my life, being involved in the strengthening of the system and the institutions that would sustain itself even if there were flaws in the human beings that run the system. That is the reason why we are still what we are.<br /><br />CSJ : I am impressed. Now -<br /><br />LKY : Now, if you are impressed, Mr Chee, you would not have made these allegations.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, is this the same integrity that you are talking about where now, declassified documents from London, that you have -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Mr Lee is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : He's talking about integrity and I would like - Your honour, he has brought up integrity and I just want to be able to pursue that line just a little bit more. Is this the same integrity -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, are you objecting to the line of questioning?<br /><br />CSJ : That you are referring to, Mr Lee, where now we begin to know, and as a young man I didn't -<br /><br />Judhe : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : As a young man I believed you. But now I'm reading declassified documents from London saying that somehow, Mr Lim Chin Siong was in his<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, (inaudible) stop<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Political situation -<br /><br />Judge : Question disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : And that somehow, you had - I beg your pardon, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : You haven't even heard my question yet. I'll make my question and then you can disallow it, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : The question is irrelevant on the little that we already know about it relates to specific instances which absolutely -<br /><br />CSJ : That when you went to London -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, I would ask Dr Chee to show some respect to this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You had allowed what you called "subversive (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : The question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : To come in play (inaudible) Mr Lim would have been disqualified.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to get at this fact that Mr Lee uses the word integrity and I want to show the courts right now that Mr Lee came into power because of certain things -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant to the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : That his government did which deprived his political opponents -<br /><br />Judge : Move on, please!<br /><br />CSJ : Of challenging him. Will you answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You don't want to answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : That settles the point, doesn't it? Mr Lee, let me come to -<br /><br />Judge : You're -<br /><br />CSJ : I have some more questions, your honour. Mr Lee, will you say categorically, right now, that you will allow a full and fair investigations into all your Internal Security Act detentions over the years?<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Sustained.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, it goes to your integrity. This is what I'm saying. That you say your government has lasted for all these years - you cited 1959 and you brought it up until now - and I'm trying to make the case that no, it was not just popular support. If it was that, grant you, your reputation is of the highest order. What I'm trying to make the case right now is that you had all this power at your disposal, you abused it, used that to lock away all your political opponents -<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Used that to crush independent and free media. You used that to make elections almost uncontestable for us and then you stand before the courts and tell the court that my reputation is sterling and I'm saying, Mr Lee, have some humility, have some sense of shame, that you are able to put this into context about everything that you've done in your life and then come clean and tell us the truth right now, that you did all these things.<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant, move on.<br /><br />CSJ : No response, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : Witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : I thought so. Now Mr Lee, you had your Press Secretary issued a statement, I think it was last Friday -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour has already ruled on this point in the cros-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong -<br /><br />CSJ : Did you or did you not allow your press secretary to make this statement because if you did, then we have a problem here, because Madam Yeong, Madam Yong I beg your pardon, is a civil servant. You are suing me, the party and Miss Chee Siok Chin in your private capacity, and if you are doing it in your private capacity, but then you've gotten a civil servant to issue press statements such as this on your behalf using taxpayers' money, on State time, then I think there is a big problem here.<br /><br />LKY : There is no problem at all. I have already stated that technically in accordance to the law I have to sue in my personal capacity with the Prime Minister. But in fact, you are attacking the whole government to become one in which the public will not believe in. What is at stake is whether what you said about the government being run like the NKF is true or not true. And I have a press secretary and she is my press secretary, I said go ahead.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, that's exactly -<br /><br />LKY : And I am entitled to do that. Look, I'm not here to quibble about the technicalities. The technicalities are yes, I'm here in my personal capacity, but the reality is we were advised by our lawyers that we are the two who most represent the government, and that's why we are here.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand that -<br /><br />LKY : And we are defending the government, not just defending ourselves.<br /><br />CSJ : I can see that point.<br /><br />LKY : If Dr Chee sees that point, why pursue it further?<br /><br />CSJ : My question to you is that if you had sued me in your personal capacity - let's not come with the 'ands', 'ifs' or 'buts' because you sign this affidavit as Mr Lee Kuan Yew NRIC number 0000003E, then why is it that you've gotten a civil servant who is paid by the taxpayers to do your private work for you?<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, when the President of the United States of the Prime Minister of Great Britain travels around the country, either his daughter's marriage or whatever it is that's got to be announced, that's his personal matter but he uses his press secretary to put out the news. If that is an abuse of the government, it makes this government less of an upright government, that's for Dr Chee to make the point to the public at the next elections. Let me point out to Dr Chee, we are thinking people and we always consider the consequences of what we do. You asked yesterday whether we are out to make you further bankrupt? So what is the purpose? Let me give you the explanation. You may believe that being a bankrupt does not mean anything but then you're a political juvenile. Mr JB Jeyaretnam knows there two ways in which you can overturn the government. One, constitutionally. The other, illegally and violently. If you want to have any influence, you must get into parliament. You have disqualified yourself, you cannot participate in any elections. As long as you stay in that sterile state, muted yourself politically in the constitutional way and by every further action, the damages go up on you, the longer the number of years you will be disqualified. And Mr Jeyaretnam knew that and he found the resources to pay up and settle his bankruptcy so that he can come back because he knows unless he's qualified, he's not within the constitutional process. Unfortunately, Dr Chee, you have not seen the point.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, may I ask you right now. Whilst you said that I think it's prefectly alright to be a bankrupt. I'm telling you, right now, you don't know what it means to be a bankrupt. I have three young children to take care of. I'm not complaining to you. I will take care of my own affairs. But for you to tell me right now that I should then work to pay off these debts that I owe you, it's disingenuous to say the least because that's what you want me to do. You will sue me over and over and over again and continue to make me work to make the money so that I cannot concentrate doing the political work - I haven't finished - to do the political work, to be able overcome this system which you have put in place, a system that is undemocratic, a system that abuses the rule of law, a system to ensure that you and your party perpetuate its hold on political power. I refused to play this game because that is a game that we cannot win. The only way that we can win is when there is a democratic system, when there is a rule of law and when both parties, ruling and opposition, have equal opportunity to reach out to voters and tell them what is best for Singapore and let the voters decide. Everytime I walk into the public and I decide to communicate with them, to sell my newsapaper, to talk to them, you jail me. You tell me where is the sense in all this? I will take whatever you dish out, Mr Lee, because at the end of the day, I know I have right on my side and as long as justice is with me, there is nothing that you can do to me that will make me back off.<br /><br />LKY : That is his credo, your honour. We believe he has got to play by the rules -<br /><br />CSJ : Rules which you have set up. Rules which you keep changing.<br /><br />LKY : Bankrupts being disqualified is a rule that applies in the United Kingdom, it applies in all the countries that have derived their systems from the British so it was a rule which was in place, not one we created. If you're a bankrupt in England, you cannot participate in elections. Therefore, do not become a bankrupt.<br /><br />CSJ : In other words, what you're saying, therefore do not criticise you -<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : That's the difference because do you see Mr Gordon Brown, or Tony Blair, or Mr George Bush suing their political opponents? Whatever is said, your honour, remains in the political realm and at the end of the day, they allow the public to make the decision. That is the difference, Mr Lee. But in the case of Singapore, you continue to ground your opponents in the most undemocratic of ways. If you could, you would have jailed them. You would have jailed them and you would not have allowed them habeas corpus, you would not allow them to come to court -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? What is the question, your honour? Really, we are tired of these political speeches which are empty -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, then I suggest you stop asking the Minister Mentor to continue making these speeches. I'll be happy to comply.<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get a sense of proportion, should understand that this is about question and answer and not about silly speeches which are impressing nobody, your honour. So if Dr Chee wants to ask a qusetion, please do. He'll get the answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I will, your honour.<br /><br />Continues in Part V<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 12:01 PM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Friday, June 06, 2008<br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />The following were transcribed by me from digital audio transcripts obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />This is a much more complete trancript of the two truncated versions posted on SDP's website here and here.<br /><br />It continues from Part ll.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant. If I were -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, you are again dodging the question.<br /><br />Singh : No, he's trying to answer the question.<br /><br />LKY : You have made serious imputations on the intergrity -<br /><br />CSJ : And then you will answer me.<br /><br />Singh : Let him finish.<br /><br />LKY : You have said that we run this government like the NKF. I'm saying that I sued you, as did my son the Prime Minister, on the advice of counsel that we were two persons most damaged because we represented the party. He as Prime Minister and me as founder of the party. I'm not here to answer irrelevant questions. I'm here to get back this question of integrity. What have you got against me which goes to the integrity of this case? I'm here to answer questions as to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I'm trying to get to this point where making the comparison between the running of the NKF versus the running of Singapore. I've made the point repeatedly - running of the NKF is done without transparency, with the top officials in it because there was much importance placed on dollars and cents and that it was an authoritarian system that was being run. And this is where I want to ask you some of these questions that -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, on the NKF as was apparent in the cross-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong, I had said that I had objected to the line of questioning for the simple reason that we are past the stage of liability. Dr Chee had every opportunity during the summary judgement to produce all his evidence, your honour, about the links between the NKF and the Government and the parallels between the NKF and the Government. He had countless adjournments, opportunities were given to him to bring out that evidence so that the matter can go for a trial and Lee Kuan Yew cross-examined. What did he do, your honour? He walked out of the room. No evidence, nothing. And today, when that issue is all over, he's trying to revive it and it's impermissable, your honour, so I object to this entire line of questioning.<br /><br />LKY : May I help the court -<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />LKY : To come to a conclusion as to the purpose of this cross-examination by asking Dr Chee to look at this testimonial and commendation from Transparency International which was given to me and -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, at this stage, I'm not sure about the procedure but this is highly irregular as I -<br /><br />LKY : I've been asked questions that pertains to my integrity although this is about the quantum of damages. I'm pointing out to Dr Chee that regardless of what he had said, and what many others have said in the opposition about the integrity of the Government, Transparency International which you've heard about, has given me this award and they are a very, very strong voice. Read it.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I will take it. I've seen it before. I've read it and I will take it that there is no dispute as far as this document is concerned.<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : Since you brought it up, Mr Lee, let me -<br /><br />LKY : If that is so -<br /><br />CSJ : I think this is my cross-examination. Mr Lee has produced this document and I like to ask him about this -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can it be marked? Can I mark P1, 2, P1, 3? P11 is the document entitled "The Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, Transparency International Malaysia, the Global Integrity Medal is awarded to the Honourable Senior Minister, the Government of the Republic of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in recognition of the successs -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Singh, I think you are running down the time, please. Like I've said already, there's no dispute. Let's take it as marked, your honour. Admit it -<br /><br />Singh : I'm identifying the document. "In recognition of his success as Prime Minister in stamping out corruption in public life and transforming Singapore into an island of integrity in his private and official life, he has exemplified -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, do me a favour, shall we not please go into this. I think Mr Singh wants the media to know of this. I'll be happy to issue them a copy.<br /><br />Singh : Page 1, page 2. I was reading page 1 your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />Singh : At the bottom, your honour. "He has exemplified ..."<br /><br />Davindar Singh spends the next two-and-minutes reading aloud the citation.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I'll be very honest with you. I'm very surprised, I'm not kidding. I'm very surprised that you would come into court with this. You are now clutching at straws. Let me tell you the background of this -<br /><br />LKY : Transparency International is not a straw organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Let me, let me finish -<br /><br />Singh : Let the witness answer please.<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International. You had mentioned Peter Eigen. I was in Sao Paulo. I had lunch with Dr Peter Eigen. He is the President of Transparency International. I asked him, "Did you know about this award?" -<br /><br />Singh : Where is this going? Dr Chee seems to be giving evidence -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you have read out -<br /><br />Singh : Sorry, Dr Chee is giving evidence from the Bar of a conversation with someone who is not in court. That is completely inpermissable.<br /><br />CSJ : Peter Eigen told me that he did not authorise Tranparency International Malaysia to give this award to you.<br /><br />Singh : That coming from a person -<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International, it's in my book which you have struck out. My list of documents -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, that coming from a person who has proved according to the witness to be a liar.<br /><br />CSJ : Now, one more time Mr Lee, are you or are you not depending on this document to show your integrity in this courtroom? I remind you one more time that you need a lot more than this. I can tell you that this award is not worth the paper that it's written on.<br /><br />LKY: We are also judged by PERC, we also judged by IMD, World Economic Forum and a whole host of other rating agencies.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Are you including International Commission Jurists? Are you including Human Rights Watch? Are you including Amnesty International? Are you including Committee to Project Journalists? Are you including International Federation for Free Exchange? Are you including Southeast Asia Press Alliance? Are you including World Movement for Democracy? Are you including Human Rights Defenders? Are you including World Forum for Democratisation in Asia? Are you including National Endowment for Democracy? Are you including Liberal International? Tell me you cited four, I cited you at least ten. Mr Lee. So do me a favour, let us not pick and choose at what endorsements you get because overall if you're trying to show me that your standing in the world is that high you wouldn't be clutching at straws and producing something from Tunku Aziz. I had a conversation with him -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, what is the question?<br /><br />CSJ: The question is why is Mr Lee depending on such a slipshop - when it is not a verifiable - if you come and tell me that you have been awarded the Nobel Prize I would accept it because that has been vetted. Tell me, who is in this organisation called Transparency International Malaysia? Tell me who are the officer here and when they make awards such as these, what vetting process do they go through?<br /><br />Singh: Can we ask the cross examiner if he has a question? If he has not and he wants to make a speech and maybe for the next one hour left he can make his political speech. If he has no more questions for the witness he should say so.<br /><br />CSJ: Your Honour, my question is this: Mr Lee has brought this ridiculous piece of paper and tells me that he is depending on this to prove his reputation. I'm asking him, does this plaintiff know who is behind this Transparency International Malaysia?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honor, the man is on the Internet and the organisation is also on the website. They asked me in a private letter if I would receive this letter. They were wanting to score a point that it is possible to have in Southeast Asia a clean government. I agreed and I assume he would not sign a document citing TI which rates us always among the top 5 unless it had been authorised to do so. And now you are saying that he is liar, that he has falsely attributed this paragraph to Dr Eigen. Well then I say if you brought Dr Eigen here with an affidavit, then you can demolish Mr Adnan (should be Aziz) but not demolish me because I do not depend on Transparency International. I'm just putting this as an example of what PERC, IMD -<br /><br />CSJ: But we haven't got the records of PERC, IMD and so in line with what Mr Singh said, let's dispense with it. Because if you did, you would produce them.<br /><br />LKY: Ha. The simple answer really is between the competing NGOs, one for HR, one for liberal ideas of how governments should be and rating agencies concerned with actual assessment of government performance - where do investors put their money in. Have not put their money in?If you study the World Bank and IMF reports in countries which are unable and corrupt -<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're deliberately running down the clock. Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />LKY: You are asking me this question -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me pose this question. You had mentioned the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! The witness, continue, finish -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! I would like to hear this witness. Please continue.<br /><br />LKY: There are liberal organisations which disagree with the way Singapore runs its social system but we believe we know better. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, otherwise we wouldn't have this courtroom, otherwise you wouldn't be able to be living in an HDB flat. That's the final test.<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're making this leap of logic that even Bruce Hawking would find it hard to follow. You are saying that without you without this entire government, we wouldn't be here? A little presumptuous, don't you think?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I'm saying -<br /><br />CSJ: You see, Mr Lee, in Hong Kong people thrive without you and your system, in Taiwan people thrive without you and your system, in Korea people thrive without you and your system, and you are coming to this court and telling me that what we have right now is all because of you and your system that you have created. I think you are making too much of a presumption.<br /><br />Singh : He should not be afraid of the answers, your honour. He should allow the answers.<br /><br />CSJ : I would like some parity in being able to have this exchange.<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can the witness be allowed to answer the question because Dr Chee has already asked the question. The witness was answering the question.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, my question right now is this - Mr Lee, you have cited Political Economic Risk Consultancy.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes.<br /><br />Judge : If you asked a question, I presume you want an answer.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour, let me continue with my next question.<br /><br />Singh : The witness has not completed the answer to the earlier question. Now, unless Dr Chee withdraws the question or says he's afraid of the answer, the witness should be allowed to complete.<br /><br />Judge : Yes, please complete your answer.<br /><br />LKY : There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel, but it is a system that have. And you have cited Taiwan, Hong Kong, in which case I ask you to remember that the President of Taiwan, after visiting Singapore earlier this year, said he admires Singapore and he wants Taiwan to become like Singapore, corruption-free. You have raised it. If you like, before these proceedings end, I will find the quote and give it to you. And you have also read, you must have read, you read voraciously, what Premier Wen Jiabao has told Mr Donald Tsang after he came to Singapore. He says, " Please go to Singapore and see what they are doing."<br /><br />CSJ : Now Mr Lee..<br /><br />LKY : And now may I add that the Hong Kong governor Sir Murray MacLehose, came to Singapore to study our anti-corruption laws and our anti-corruption system with the CPIB and he went back to Hong Kong and instituted similar system, and cleaned up the corruption that was seeping Hong Kong society. That is the integrity of Singapore and if we failed on that, the Government should be prosecuted and ousted.<br /><br />CSJ: Is this the same integrity that you are referring to when your government in 1963 arrested all your political opponents under Operation Coldstore?<br /><br />Davinder Singh rises to object.<br /><br />Dr Chee (turning to Mr Singh): Let him answer, he wants to answer.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />Singh: Thank you, Your Honour.<br /><br />CSJ : He wants to talk about integrity and I want to talk about integrity. Let's talk about integrity, Mr Lee. Is this the same integrity as you are referring to when you jailed Mr Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, when you imprisoned Dr Lim Hock Siew for 17 years..<br /><br />Singh : I object, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : And when depriving them all –<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />LKY : May I just point out that the final test is what Singapore was when I became Prime Minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now. We had less that a $100 million in the kitty. Today, between the GIC, Temasek and all the assets that we have. I'm not disclosing this but Global Financial Services assessed Singapore's sovereign wealth fund at over US$300 billion.<br /><br />CSJ : And -<br /><br />LKY : And had we not run such a government, we wouldn't have had these funds nor would we have the strength to defend the Singapore dollar whatever the speculators do nor would we have the infrastructure that we have including this court where we offer people like Dr Chee the luxury of all the facilities including digital transcripts that come up as the proceedings go on.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, my problem with this -<br /><br />LKY : These are the manifestations -<br /><br />CSJ : Sure -<br /><br />LKY : Of the basic policy. Let me finish. You've asked me and I'm pointing out that final test is not Transparency International, PERC, IMD, IMF but the solid actions, the solid results of the lives of the people and what Singapore is, and what you're trying to do is to demolish it.<br /><br />CSJ : That is complete nonsense.<br /><br />LKY : And have the corruption that exist in other places.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, let me take you back. I've told you already. What you are saying is that what you have done - the arrests of all your political opponents, the closing down of an independent and free media, all your shenanigans including making sure that I'm not allowed to get up on stage during an election rally, my party's rally, and what you've done, increasing the election deposit, by introducing the GRC - You are saying that all that is justified because now $3 billion -<br /><br />LKY : $300 billion dollars.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. $300 billion in our kitty, which by the way, I remind you, you will not let the people enjoy its fruits.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />CSJ : You have continue to help -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, these questions are irrelevant. I've already indicated that they are not to be pursued in this courtroom. This is not the proper forum. There is no requirement for the witness to answer the question. Move on please.<br /><br />Continues in Part lV<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Read also :<br /><br />David Vs Goliath In Court<br /><br />Restrictions Follow Critics To Cyberspace<br /><br />What Is Chee Soon Juan's Game Plan?<br /><br />US blogger released on bail in Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 5:32 PM 1 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, June 02, 2008<br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"And if you go over the line, if you defame us, we're prepared to sue you, go into the witness box and be cross-examined. You can brief the best lawyers and demolish us. If I'm involved, I go to the witness box. And you can question me, not only on the particular defamatory issue, but all issues in my life."<br /><br />- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Time Magazine, Dec 2005 <br /><br /><br />The following exchange was first posted on SDP website here. The transcript is based on the digital audio recordings obtained from the High Court. Again, as a watcher in the public gallery that day, I can attest that they are true.<br /><br />I will post as much of the available transcripts here for purpose of future reference. Suffice to say it is unlikely that such an encounter will ever take place again in the Singapore courts, or for that matter, in any venue open to public scrutiny.<br /><br />Meanwhile, US lawyer Gopalan Nair was arrested by the police in his Serangoon Road hotel on Saturday night and will be charged in court today.<br /><br />Latest : Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin have been sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively for contempt of court. The sentences were meted out by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, who also presided over the defamation hearings. The Chees are expected to file appeals on Wednesday.<br /><br />And according to this reuters report, Gopalan Nair will be detained for the next 7 days pending further investigations.<br /><br />For updates of Gopalan Nair's arrest and detention, visit his lawyer's blog.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: (pause)...Sorry?<br /><br />CSJ: We get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: I thought we've met many other times across election rallies.<br /><br />CSJ: Your memory fails you. I've never met you before and you know why? Because you keep avoiding me. (Mr Lee laughs) Well, we have this opportunity right now. Let me ask you this question. You gave an interview saying: "If you defame us, and if I'm involved, I go to the the witness box and you can question me not only on the particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life." Do you stand by your words?<br /><br />LKY: I do.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. In the course of the cross-examination, will you then answer questions not just on this particular defamation issue, but on all issues in your life -- and I don't mean your personal life, I mean your political life? Will you stand by that?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, we appeared in court when the issue was whether or not the summary judgment was proper. That was the time to challenge --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, that was not my question.<br /><br />Judge: Allow the witness to answer. Mr Lee, please go on.<br /><br />LKY: I have to answer. I'm a lawyer. I no longer practice the law. I know your purpose. You dodged that occasion and you're trying -- Dr Chee is trying today when the issue is the question of quantum of damages, it's not liability. I'm here to answer questions relating to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ: Thank you. Then why is it that you say you will go to the witness box --<br /><br />LKY: I have already explained that, Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: -- and answer questions not just particular to this defamation issue but on all issues of your life. Now tell me, are those just brave words meant for public consumption and in this situation right now you're turning tail and running?<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha, no Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Then you won't mind me asking you why is it that you make this application to cut short your cross-examination precisely when you walk in at noon and say that you have to be stopped in the cross-examination by 2:15 giving me. the defence, only two hours and fifteen minutes, and then insisting that all of us can't go for lunch. And on top of that refusing to tell the court what this "important matter" you have this afternoon is.<br /><br />LKY: That's...Your Honour...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: I'm lost for words too as I think you are right now.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause; Mr Lee was seen opening his mouth to answer but no words came out)<br /><br />CSJ: Go ahead, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: No answer? That settles the question then.<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ: Fine, let Mr Lee continue. I'm just waiting. He's probably lost for words because he doesn't quite know what to say at this stage.<br /><br />Judge: If you keep interrupting the witness...Yes, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(even longer pause)<br /><br />CSJ: Please don't run down the clock. I've only got a few minutes.<br /><br />At this stage, Mr Davinder Singh jumped in to bail out Mr Lee. <br /><br />Singh: What is the question? Dr Chee has made so many points in his speech. He has already been told that the time to cross-examine the witness was during the summary judgment. If he had leave to defend. All issues would have been open for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that Dr Chee had dodged that application and is now trying through the back door to introduce impermissible material. The witness said he is here as he said to answer questions on quantum. Dr Chee should really get on with the issue of quantum.<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask the question again. Mr Lee, you have said that you are here to answer these questions and I say that in that case why did you make an application to, halfway through the session, want the court to cut short this entire hearing. Now, I remind you that we have got until the end of tomorow, the end of tomorrow. So we have one-and-a-half days. But you insist that we have to finish by 2:15 for you to attend to some matters that you won't even reveal to the court. Now I ask you now does this sound like somebody who's willing to come to court and meet and resolve the issues?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I had a message from one of my counsel's aides to say that I should be in court by here 2 o'clock - by 12 o'clock because Your Honour has imposed a guillotine that the cross-examination of the prime minister would end at twelve. So I turn up at twelve. I was told that the guillotine allowed - had already been late he would be given 2 hours. I suggest - I asked my counsel to request the court to finish this two hours so that I can attend to some important matters. There's no disadvantage to anybody to be sitting here and finishing off this cross-examination within the two hours. What I do not want to be a party to is a deliberate abuse of the process, of the proceedings of the court by delaying tactics.<br /><br />CSJ: So, Mr Lee --<br /><br />LKY: And by asking irrelevant questions, Dr Chee is running out the gullotine. At the end of the day, we've had this confrontation face to face have you thrown any dirt, have you dug up any scandal? Are you still saying as you've said before that this government is run like the NKF?<br /><br />CSJ: Now, Mr Lee, let me try to --<br /><br />LKY: No, we are here because you have said that --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, I'm going to ask you this question and I wish you'd just stick to the questions that I pose to you. I'm asking you why did you come to court --<br /><br />LKY: Because I was asked --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me rephrase my question. Are you telling the court that you had nothing to do with the curtailment of this entire process?<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, I made the application this morning and Your Honour would remembers that I said I was very troubled with what the Chees did yesterday and that it was quite apparent that they had nothing to ask which was of any relevance and that unfortunately or otherwise has been proven in this exchange. And I said, Your Honour, that the whole purpose of the cross-examination was to insult, annoy and to scandalise and that's also been proven true. For that reason, I had asked that there be a guillotine. Your Honour had full powers to control the proceedings. The order has already been made and I don't see why this witness should be asked to explain something that was the subject of my application and Your Honour's order.<br /><br />CSJ: Do you see the game that's being played here, Mr Lee? Do you see how you are beginning to hide behind your counsel and then claim, "Look, I'm willing to confront them. It's my counsel." Now I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Right here, right now, tell Mr Davnder Singh "Don't interrupt. I will answer these questions as they are put to me right now."<br /><br />LKY: Heh-heh. Your Honour, I've briefed counsel, I've always found it's never wise to be my own lawyer in my own case. I know that some perople believe that they can do otherwise, and I'm quite sure that Dr Chee is making a very great impression on all the reporters in this court of how he is better than Mr Ravi --<br /><br />CSJ: I think you meant Mr Singh.<br /><br />LKY: I believe Mr Singh is better qualified to deal with the legalities of this case.<br /><br />CSJ: Well, I should hope so with all the training that he's got. Now, coming back to my question, Mr Lee, is your answer no, that you wll not tell Mr Singh: "Stay out of this. Let me answer my question because --<br /><br />LKY: I --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me finish my question -- because you have said -- and I repeat to you -- that you will answer not only questions about the "particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life."<br /><br />LKY: Yes...as long as that was what was an issue and that was the, it was an issue in the summary judgement was appealed against. [Note how garbled the answer is.] And we turned up for the hearing but you dodged the hearing.<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, you are not unintelligent.<br /><br />LKY: Thank you.<br /><br />CSJ: You knew precisely what you meant and what you mean is: "Come and ask me all these questions that doesn't pertain to this defamation suit and I will answer you because my entire standing, inlcuding the standing of this government, is at stake." Is that not correct?<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:24 AM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 31, 2008<br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br /><br /><br />The following excerpts of court transcripts were first posted on SDP's website here and here. I was in the public gallery when the exchange took place so I can testify that they are true. I am posting them here again for sake of posterity.<br /><br />If you don't know the background of this case, read this, this, this and this. Meanwhile, another member of the public gallery that day, Gopalan Nair - a former dissident who has since taken up US citizenship - has issued a challenge to PM Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee Kuan Yew to sue him for libel. Read his account of the trial here.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Chee (to Lee Hsien Loong): Would you refer to pg 192 of your AEIC, para 3 and read it to us.<br /><br />Mr Lee Hsien Loong starts reading. Just before he gets to the words he uttered about fixing the opposition and buying over his supporters, Mr Davinder Singh stands up.<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: I’ll read it.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, you read it.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee please tell us the relevance.<br /><br />Chee: This paragraph will show it's true of him -<br /><br />Judge Move on, the question is disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: He has used words like "fix" and "buy votes". He's here to tell me that his reputation is based on so much. I’m here to demolish it, when he buys votes -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Let it be recorded then. Mr Lee, come out and don’t hide behind your counsel. You have every opportunity to answer the questions. You allow your counsel to cover -<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: Court has taken note of Dr Chee’s conduct.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, please refer to pg 39 of your AEIC sub-heading "lack of transparency." Do you agree with the last line and last paragraph that the GIC operates in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection. Dr Chee is seeking to reopen the issue. This article relates to the offending words. The meaning has been taken to be false. The question of liability is done.<br /><br />Chee: Turn then to pg 75 of your AEIC, bottom of the page. Is the Government transparent? Do you agree with this statement?<br /><br />Singh: I object.<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Do you believe the funds belongs to the people?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Same line and reason, that he is the Prime Minister and takes pride in the integrity -<br /><br />Singh: The question is on the matter of Assesment of Damages -<br /><br />Judge: Move on, Dr Chee.<br /><br />Chee: You are the Deputy or the Vice Chairman of the GIC?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: I want to establish that he says his reputation is sterling -<br /><br />Singh: My client didn’t say that.<br /><br />Judge: Yes.<br /><br />Chee: How and where you have invested the GIC funds?<br /><br />Judge: Move on.<br /><br />Chee: Were you aware of the scandal at NKF -<br /><br />Singh: Relevancy? NKF is a matter of liability.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: Then you agree that T T Durai's salary was excessive?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree the salary -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, my client was not aware of the NKF scandal -<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: If T T Durai had a summary judgement -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the openness of the Government -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: I disagree as the witness was a Prime Minister during the period and argued in Parliament -<br /><br />Singh: Maybe the Health Ministry was misled and my client did not know. The Government did proceed to investigate the matter.<br /><br />Chee: The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health made comments and continued leading the people to donate to the NKF. You were the Prime Minister -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: Did you know the warning signals -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: These were raised in Parliament and whether he was sleeping like some of his colleagues -<br /><br />Singh: That is not necessary and insulting -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, move on.<br /><br />Singh: I want to remind Dr Chee of the injunction against repeating -<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree if the salary is too much?<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Do you think that your Ministers spend too much -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: I put to you that the PAP is bent on greed and power.<br /><br />Singh Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee Refer to pg 9 of your AEIC. Is the information on the cost of labour of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Is information on the cost of material of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the HDB is operating in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:48 PM 9 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, May 19, 2008<br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Go to one-nation-under-lee.org to watch or download all available formats of the video.<br /><br />Directed by Seelan Palay under Honest Productions.<br /><br />___________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Singapore to Dissident Leader: Shut Up<br /><br />The senior Lee, now the “minister mentor,” who served as Singaporean prime minister from 1969 to 1990, once won extra damages from a Singaporean judge for what the judge considered too rigorous a cross-examination by a defense lawyer.<br /><br />As an example of how prickly the 84-year-old Lee and his government can be, last Saturday, officials from the Media Development Authority, which regulates the media and censors films for public broadcast, descended on a room in the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel where about 70 opposition figures were holding a fundraising event and private screening of a 45-minute film of titled “One Nation Under Lee,” which is critical of the former premier’s rise to power and subsequent crackdown on his opponents. The officials seized the DVD.<br /><br />Read full article here.<br />______________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Libel case shows Singapore's limits<br /><br />Another opposition party would then disappear from the scene, joining a long list of previous challengers to Lee's dominance of Singapore politics since he became its prime minister in 1959.<br /><br />The list is handily presented in a new 45-minute documentary video by activist Seelan Pillay, One Nation Under Lee, which can be viewed on a number of websites and blogs, including one called Singabloodypore.<br /><br />A private screening at the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel in Singapore last Saturday was interrupted by three officials from the Media Development Authority, who seized the DVD and equipment, after warning that under the Films Act it was an offence "to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate".<br /><br />Full article here.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Singapore authorities confiscate film on Minister Mentor at private screening<br /><br />22 May 2008<br />Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Bangkok<br /><br />Singapore authorities attempted to stop a private screening of a critical film on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 17 May 2008, alleging that the screening violated the Films Act, according to news reports.<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act forbids the screening of a film that has not been vetted by the censors, punishing violators with a maximum fine of S$40,000 (approx. US$29,428), or jail term of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />Three officers from the Media Development Authority (MDA), claiming they were acting on a "tip-off", went to the hotel where the film, "One nation under Lee", was being premiered and requested for the disc, alleging that it has not been vetted by the censors.<br /><br />The night before the screening, the Board of Film Censors had warned the organisers of the offence they would be committing under the law if they had not submitted the film for approval.<br /><br />The 45-minute film is produced and directed by artist/activist Seelan Palay. It documents former premier Lee's rise to power through a host of restrictive measures on civil liberties, criticises the economic and political governance of the ruling party and pays tribute to the efforts of activists and citizens who persist in claiming and exercising their democratic rights. The film is available online here.<br /><br />The MDA officers claimed that the action was a matter of compliance and not an objection to the content of the film. Yet, when organiser Chee Siok Chin, a leading member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, argued that the broad terms of the law would also subject such censorship to every wedding dinner that showed videos of the happy couple, one of the officials said, "This is not the same as a wedding dinner", clearly showing otherwise.<br /><br />The MDA officials later brought in plainclothes officers in an attempt to hold the organisers for obstruction of justice. They left, however, when Chee agreed to hand over the film as the screening had fortunately ended by then.<br /><br />However, the officials returned moments later for the projector, they were faced with a spirited refusal by the organisers and the 70-strong audience, who insisted they had no right to the equipment. A recording of what transpired is available here.<br /><br />The authorities are reportedly investigating the screening.<br /><br />The Singapore government has long maintained a tight rein on free expression in the country, allegedly in the interest of maintaining public order and social harmony in the tiny city-state of 4.6 million people. The local media are controlled through ownership, while foreign media and the opposition leaders are given a beating in the courts through successful civil defamation suits, sending a chilling message to the citizens. Even so, pockets of civil society continue to find creative ways of claiming their right to expression, from holding demonstrations of one to four (the law imposes a permit for gatherings of five or more, which is often refused to the opposition) and expressing themselves through the arts.<br /><br /><br />Singapore probes political film on Lee Kuan Yew<br /><br />SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's media regulator is investigating the screening of a political film that an opposition party said critically examines the city-state's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br />The film, "One Nation Under Lee", was made by a group of political activists and looks at the rise of Lee and his relationship with the media, Chee Siok Chin, a senior member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), told Reuters.<br /><br />It was screened to an audience of about 70 at an opposition party fundraising event last week, before Singapore's media regulator interrupted the showing and took the film, said Chee, the event organiser.<br /><br />"After investigation, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) proceeded to serve a notice to the appropriate person that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition," Tan Chiu Kee of the BFC said in a statement late on Tuesday, adding that a copy had been handed to officials.<br /><br />Singapore, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party (PAP) for over 40 years, bans the production and screening of all political films, imposing a maximum fine of S$100,000 ($73,260) or a jail term of two years on those caught.<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew, 84, is credited with policies that have been critical to making Singapore one of the region's most prosperous countries, but has been criticised by human rights groups for his use of lawsuits against political opponents and the media.<br /><br /><br />Film seized by censors after organisers went ahead with screening despite being warned<br /><br />The Straits Times, Singapore<br />by Sue-Ann Chia<br /><br />A 45-MINUTE film portraying Singapore as lacking in press and political freedoms is under investigation by the Board of Film Censors (BFC).<br /><br />Titled One Nation Under Lee, the film was being screened to an audience of about 70 at the Peninsula Excelsior Hotel last Saturday when officials from the BFC turned up to seize the film.<br /><br />Organisers of the screening, led by Ms Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party, argued it was a private event, but BFC officials said they had been tipped off that the film had not been passed by the censors and they had the right to investigate.<br /><br />The police were called in when negotiations hit a stalemate.<br /><br />Ms Chee eventually let BFC officials into the room and handed over the film.<br /><br />The altercation was filmed and put online on video-sharing site YouTube.<br /><br />Guests paid $20 each to attend the screening-cum-lunch, said Mr Martyn See, a film-maker who was in the audience.<br /><br />Produced by 23-year-old political activist Seelan Palay, the film depicts a Singapore tightly controlled by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and includes a call for civil disobedience.<br /><br />It also includes interviews with former political detainee Said Zahari and opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam.<br /><br />Ms Chee told The Straits Times: 'It seems bizarre that the authorities would come to this private event. At a wedding, they don't expect people to send in their videos being screened for classification. What's the difference here?'<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act makes it an offence to exhibit a film that has not been approved for exhibition. The penalty is a fine of up to $40,000, or jail of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />BFC assistant licensing officer Tan Chiu Kee said yesterday it was alerted last Thursday to the forthcoming screening of One Nation Under Lee.<br /><br />As no film of that title had been submitted for classification, and the BFC had not issued any certificate for a film with that title, it launched an investigation, and later issued a warning to the 'appropriate person'.<br /><br />Ms Chee confirmed that a BFC official told her of the offence at 9pm last Friday.<br /><br />Still, the screening proceeded the next day. So BFC officials went to the event to investigate, said Mr Tan.<br /><br />'The persons connected with the event had chosen to disregard the BFC's notices...that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition,' said Mr Tan, adding that investigations are continuing.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:20 AM 7 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screening <br />Part l<br /><br /><br /><br />Part ll<br /><br /><br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:10 AM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 17, 2008<br />Censors and police seize video at private screening <br />Complete videos of the seized film and the seizing have been uploaded. Go to main page.<br /><br /><br />Censorship enforcement in Singapore sank to a new low today as officers from the Board of Film Censors (a department of the MDA) turned up at Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel's Tulip Room to demand that organisers of a film screening hand over the video for classification.<br /><br />The invitation for the screening of "One Nation Under Lee" had been circulated via email with the explicit note that it was to be a private function. Still, the BFC delivered a letter to the Singapore Democratic Party's office last night, warning the organisers that Section 14 of Films Act requires all films (and the Act do mean ALL videos, including those stored on your mobile phone) to be submitted to the Board for classification.<br /><br />Undeterred, the organisers pressed on with the screening today. Just before it began at 2pm, officers from the Board of Film Censors showed up at the door to serve the reminder. Still, the 45 minute video was screened in its entirety, interrupted periodically by raised voices outside the hall. Apparently, plainclothes police officers were called in to seize the video as the organisers had refused to budge.<br /><br />Just as the screening ended, BFC officers were ushered into the hall, given microphones and were told to explain to the audience, numbering about 80, about their intentions. They didn't use the PA system, but were heard uttering something about wanting to seize the video, which were eventually given to them. Minutes later, another government officer came in, muttering about wanting to see the projector. After being repeatedly told that he could not, he left in a puff.<br /><br />The film itself was surprisingly slick and compelling but the off-screen drama was the highlight for me. Life imiatates art, and vice versa. All in all, a pretty entertaining afternoon.<br /><br />I'm sure there'll be photos, videos and more reports coming up soon about today's drama. Check back for link updates.<br /><br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />Film on Lee Kuan Yew seized by MDA<br /><br />Government officials disrupt private screening of film on LKY<br /><br />Pictures here<br /><br />The gatecrashers<br /><br />MDA没收私人放映录像<br /><br />This is Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 6:52 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Older Posts Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Videos<br />One Nation Under Lee <br />Speakers Cornered <br />Nation Builders <br />Zahari's 17 Years (banned) <br />Singapore Rebel (banned) <br />Riot police vs four silent protesters <br />Said Zahari's Book Launch <br />Speakers Cornered teaser <br /> Contact<br />singapore_rebel{at}yahoo.com <br /> Blogs that promote Asian Values<br />Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy <br />International Campaign for Tibet <br />Secret Tibet <br />Students for a free Tibet <br />Truth about China <br />China e-Lobby <br />Malaysia Today <br />Jeff Ooi, Malaysia <br />Tian Chua, Malaysia <br />Elizabeth Wong, Malaysia <br />Infernal Ramblings. Malaysia <br />Indonesia Matters <br />Burma Digest <br />Burma Underground <br />Ki Media, Cambodia <br />Southeast Asian Press Alliance <br />Politics from Taiwan <br />Taiwan Matters <br />View from Taiwan <br />Rebecca MacKinnon <br />For a Democratic Nepal <br />North Korea zone <br />Angry Chinese Blogger <br />Glutter, HK <br /> Local Voices<br />Singabloodypore <br />The Online Citizen <br />Singapore Daily <br />Singapore Surf <br />Yawning Bread <br />Mr Wang <br />Sg Review yahoo group <br />Sg Politics <br />Pseudonymity <br />My sketchbook <br />Molly Meek <br />Singapore Election Watch <br />Singapore Alternatives <br />Sg Review <br />Singapore Dissident <br />Singapore Window <br />The Orchid Revolution <br /> Movie links<br />Cinema showtimes <br />Sinema Sg <br />SIFF <br />Sg Film forum <br /> Blog Archive<br />▼ 2008 (21) <br />▼ June (4) <br />Transcript part V : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br />► May (5) <br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screen... <br />Censors and police seize video at private screenin... <br />Filmmaker submits six videos featuring political p... <br />► April (6) <br />Singapore Government's biggest blockbuster since 1... <br />Speakers Cornered rated NC16 by censors <br />An open invitation to political bloggers <br />Gay Muslim filmmaker calls Singapore's regime "alm... <br />Censors ban four foreign films <br />Activists screen political films in "private funct... <br />► March (2) <br />Rebels of the Malaysian political tsunami <br />The greatest jailbreak, or the boldest story ever ... <br />► February (3) <br />Censorship under the PAP : 1959 - 2008 <br />Film ban hurts Singapore's press freedom <br />Film fest disqualifies Martyn See's film <br />► January (1) <br />This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br />► 2007 (39) <br />► December (3) <br />Twice banned filmmaker submits third film <br />Videos : Singaporean lawyers petition; Malaysian l... <br />Speakers Cornered - Complete video now unleashed <br />► November (2) <br />Video : Burmese citizens mount protest on Orchard ... <br />Singapore police abducts activists in daylight <br />► October (5) <br />One Country, Two Systems - Part ll <br />Videos of bloody crackdown in Burma <br />One Country, Two Systems <br />Guard dogs of St. Martin's Drive <br />Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in ... <br />► September (5) <br />By George, do you have blood on your hands? <br />Martyn See speaks out on police probe, foreign "in... <br />Banned film to screen in Johor Bahru <br />Singaporean works feature in Malaysian human right... <br />Said Zahari's book available in Singapore <br />► August (1) <br />Nation Builders - A new video by Martyn See <br />► July (4) <br />The Long Nightmare - Foreward excerpts <br />Don't shade the past, tell it like it is, says LKY... <br />Founding PAP member and ex-political prisoner to p... <br />Video : Said Zahari launches book <br />► June (3) <br />Former political prisoner Said Zahari to launch bo... <br />'Singapore You Are Not My Country' <br />They came first for the communists ... <br />► May (1) <br />"Marxist Conspiracy" arrests - 20 years on <br />► April (7) <br />Film ban "ineffective and counter-productive" <br />RSF urges Singapore to lift ban <br />All this censorship makes no sense : MM Lee <br />'Zahari's 17 Years' now online <br />Film ban strange, says Said Zahari <br />► March (4) <br />► February (3) <br />► January (1) <br />► 2006 (20) <br />► December (1) <br />► November (2) <br />► October (2) <br />► September (2) <br />► August (1) <br />► July (1) <br />► May (2) <br />► April (3) <br />► March (1) <br />► February (2) <br />► January (3) <br />► 2005 (77) <br />► December (2) <br />► November (3) <br />► October (4) <br />► September (11) <br />► August (14) <br />► July (10) <br />► June (7) <br />► May (12) <br />► April (6) <br />► March (6) <br />► January (2) <br />► 2004 (3) <br />► November (3) <br /> Martyn See <br />I'm a Singaporean who survived 15 months of police investigation for the making of banned short film 'Singapore Rebel', deemed to be an illegal political film under the law. Has since followed up with 'Zahari's 17 Years', a documentary on an ex-political detainee, and 'Speakers Cornered', a chronology of brief scenes from a street corner standoff between pro-democracy activists and the police. Otherwise, he is mostly a law-abiding Singaporean video editor. Feature editing credits include Mee Pok Man (1994, Eric Khoo) That One No Enough (2000, Jack Neo) I Do I Do (2005, Wen Hui, Jack Neo) Singapore Gaga (2005,Tan Pin Pin) Just Follow Law (2007, Jack Neo) <br />View my complete profile <br /> "If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955 <br /><br />If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.<br /><br />- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955 <br /><br />"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."<br /><br />- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956<br /><br />_________________________________________________________________<br /><br />The final instalment of the courtroom clash between Lee Kuan Yew and Chee Soon Juan. Transcript courtesy of yours truly. Continues from Part lV. <br /><br />CSJ : You had mentioned, Mr Lee, that there were two ways of gaining political power. You had said something about being not a bankrupt so that you can stand for elections and then the other method you said was through constitutional means, through -<br /><br />LKY : Through unconstitutional means.<br /><br />CSJ : The other way? No, I think you meant through constitutional means.<br /><br />Singh : If Dr Chee would stop talking and start listening, he would have heard that what the witness said was either do it be constitutional means, i.e through parliament by not being a bankrupt or violently, illegally.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. I appreciate your assistance on this matter. I agree. I completely agree with you, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : May I -<br /><br />CSJ : That constitutional means is the way to go -<br /><br />Singh : No, no, no -<br /><br />CSJ : But the funny thing, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? It's not whether it's a funny thing or not. The only thing funny with (inaudible) are the speeches coming out -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can I ask for a ruling that Dr Chee (inaudible) the questions because in the last -<br /><br />CSJ : The constitution allows us freedom of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : And you have completely butchered all that!<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, the last question, if that can be a question, is completely irrelevant as far as this court is concerned. I've already said those sort of questions are not for this courtroom. He's here to assess to the damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Point taken, your honour. And this is what I'm trying to derive at -<br /><br />Judge : Now 2.40. I've given you the indulgence. I don't know if Miss Chee wishes to ask questions. I assume you are eating into her time.<br /><br />CSJ : All that I'm saying right now is, your honour, Mr Lee has made this point that to gain political power there are certain rules and those rules are set in the constitution. And I'm saying that I agree with it. Those rules were not written by me. Those rules were written by the British, and which Mr Lee agreed to. Now in one of those rules there, it says citizens of Singapore are guaranteed the freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question?<br /><br />CSJ : Right now, why is Mr Lee changing those rules? Because when I begin to exercise these freedoms of speech and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : If that's the question, the witness will answer the question.<br /><br />CSJ : We get arrested. Tell us right now, are you up for a free and fair fight during elections?<br /><br />LKY : I do not know -<br /><br />CSJ : In a constitutional manner.<br /><br />LKY : There is nothing to hinder an opposition party in Singapore from -<br /><br />CSJ : I beg your pardon. There's everything that will hinder an opposition party.<br /><br />LKY : The SDP was doing very well under Chiam See Tong and at one time captured three seats and it became the de-facto leader. You came in and destroy the SDP -<br /><br />CSJ : Don't change subject, Mr Lee. Don't change the subject.<br /><br />LKY : As a result, because you had destroyed the standing of the SDP, the Workers' Party has become the de-facto leader of the opposition. That's an open con-(inaudible). The Workers' Party has won the elections, Mr Chiam in his personal capacity has continually and repeatedly won the elections without defaming anybody.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I talk about -<br /><br />LKY : Low Thia Kiang has not defame anybody, not defame the government, neither has Chiam See Tong and they have won successive by-elections but you have lost successively because we have disproved to the people that you are not to be believed.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, when I ask you about freedoms of speech, assembly-<br /><br />LKY : That is the whole purpose of this exchange in this court -<br /><br />CSJ : When I ask you about the freedoms of speech, assembly and association -<br /><br />LKY : We have heard all that -<br /><br />CSJ : I don't just mean political parties. I mean citizens of Singapore. Even a citizen of this country who is not a member of a political party has the right to freedom of speech, association and assembly -<br /><br />Singh : And the question is, your honour?<br /><br />CSJ : Would you allow these people their rights or are you going to sit there and continue to curtail their rights? Simple answer, Mr Lee, you know -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Disallowed. This is not the court to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You are intelligent. You know what freedom of speech is. You know what freedom of assembly is.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I've already ruled. Please continue with the next question.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, will you allow more than five people to assemble in an public area?<br /><br />LKY : These -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, these rules were in existence before the PAP took office. They have remained on our statute book, or rather in regulations under the statutes.<br /><br />CSJ : And you are saying that these rules before the PAP. Which was the government before the PAP? The British, I assume.<br /><br />LKY : No, before the -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let me ask you. Was the British a colonial government?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Lee, it is not for you to answer that question.<br /><br />CSJ : He's made that point and I'm just clarifying that point. Your honour, you see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : I've already ruled.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, hear me out. Mr Lee makes his point that his party, his government, did not come up with these rules. I say fine. Who came up with these rules then? The British came up with these rules. The point that I want to establish is the British was an undemocratic government. Mr Lee is making my point right now that by continuing these undemocratic rules, Singapore has been governed in a very undemocratic way. And when you govern Singapore in an undemocratic way, you try to tell this court here that my reputation is A-One, you have a problem.<br /><br />LKY : I -<br /><br />CSJ : But if Mr George Bush or Mr Gordon Brown or any leader in the democratic world stands up and says, "if I can garner 80% of the votes", yes, that would be something. But not in a society where you controlled the press, and I remember, Mr Lee, whether you do or not I don't know, but when you said about the -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, how long do we have to listen to this because Dr Chee is not prepared to listen -<br /><br />CSJ : The media, the press, being controlled to the point where they begin to be sycophants -<br /><br />Judge : I've taken (inaudible) of Mr Chee's conduct which I will deal with on Wednesday.<br /><br />Singh : Thank you, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, would you then respond?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer. Question is totally irrelevant to the assessment of damages. I have repeated myself many times.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee -<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry?<br /><br />Judge : It's 2.45 now.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, let's continue on because this is a very important national matter.<br /><br />Judge : Not for this court, Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour -<br /><br />Judge : (inaudible) Take it outside this courtroom. My ruling -<br /><br />CSJ : But, no. Hold on. Wait, wait. Your honour, Mr Lee is saying that his reputation is very important because it is national matter and in that context I'm trying to deal with. If he didn't say that his reputation is of national priority, then there is no issue. But right now, Mr Lee has made that point and Mr Lee has continued to want to defend, then let me then question him as well. (Pause) Mr Lee, you had some point said that the PAP, I take it a lot of times it is you, that said that "we have engineered elections that would make Singaporeans stupid to want to vote us out." What do you mean by that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : We have given Singaporeans something that we've never had before. Singapore society which is now well-educated, 20% of them in tertiary institutions, 40% of them in polytechnics, another 20% in ITE, everybody owns a home, everybody has got proper medical care and everybody is catered for and looked after. If they were not catered for and looked after, they wouldn't have voted for this government to be re-elected. It's as simple as that. The final test is not what Mr Chee says or what I say but the reality on the ground. Have we created Singapore better than 1959? When the Prime Minister goes for elections in a few years time, whether he wins or loses depends on whether the people believe they're worse off or better off. It's as simple as that. This is the acid test.<br /><br />CSJ : Sure, sure, but unfortunately Mr Lee, it is not as simple as that because if you're saying that the acid test is whether people feel they benefited from your system, then why is it, Mr Lee, that even you and the current Senior Minister continue to lament that Singaporeans are leaving Singapore in droves. Let me cite you a statistic that I didn't do the study - it was your press that did it - cited that 50% of young Singaporeans didn't feel that they were patriotic to this country. Can you explain when you say to Singaporeans that you've done so well, provided so much for them, and yet - now you have 50 years, no interruptions, there was never any change in governments in between, so you had an uninterrupted period of rule in Singapore, yet at the end of the road, you come to a situation where your young cannot wait to want to get out when they have a chance and tell you "we don't feel patriotic at all to this country." Have you failed, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I am not aware of this particular survey, how wide it is, and I'm not particularly moved one way or the other. The final test is - are they leaving permanently? Because that's what they can do. We have educated them to a point where those in the top 20% with tertiary qualifications can go to any English-speaking country and find a job. That is the acid test and that goes on all the time.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I am trying to tell that your worry is that they are leaving permanently, they are not coming back, they are even willing to break their bonds because they don't want to continue living in a society which you have created. They don't want to live in this society which they don't feel a sense of belonging. They don't want to live in a society where they have no say, that come elections, everything is railroaded, and they don't have a way that they can pick their leaders.<br /><br />LKY : Therefore, I advise you to find some way, get your NGO supporters, to discharge you from your bankruptcy, then you would be able to campaign against us.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, how do I campaign against you when at every turn of the way, you put a stop to it? One way that I can campaign is through the media. You control it. One way that I can campaign is to get down to the street and talk to voters. You arrest me. One way that I can campaign is through my party's newspaper. You sue us. Tell me, apart from using this word "campaign" in the most frivolous, the most egregious of manner, how do we campaign when you, sitting in the Istana, makes sure opposition parties can never, never compete on an equal footing?<br /><br />LKY : In no country is it the duty of the government to build the opposition. And the fact that opposition leaders can get elected, re-elected and re-elected, despite very riogorous campaigning against them by leaders of the PAP, proves that they know when they decide that they want this man, they will vote for him.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm not asking you to build up the opposition -<br /><br />LKY : I am suggesting to Dr Chee that if he follows the constitutional route, with his eloquence, if he can establish credibility with his eloquence, he has a better chance than Mr Low Thia Kiang or Mr Chiam See Tong. But if he has got no credibility, and the proceedings in the last two days would not have been unnoticed, the press is here, public is here. You have come and try to degrade the proceedings, you have come to make an abuse of the processes of this court. The judge is in charge. The judge knows you can appeal against her judgements. The judge can given you all the opportunities to tie yourself up. That is my reading of what is going on in this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, the opposition has never made the case that you as the ruling party -<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : He has made a point, your honour, and I like to respond. And that is that - you see, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : (inaudible) it fails on all grounds of cross-examination, on irrelevance that really, we've past I think a long time ago, I think just as the cross-examination started, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree - I move on to my next question, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : He's got an answer now and so he cannot challenge that answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree, Mr Lee - are you saying, you telling the courts right now that the government has not hampered the opposition in any way?<br /><br />Judge : Mr Chee, I do not wish to hear that line of questioning any more -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to make this point -<br /><br />Judge : It is totally irrelevant. What I have to decide on -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour. Let me make this point. Mr Lee has brought up -<br /><br />Judge : One minute more.<br /><br />CSJ : The point that I am asking -<br /><br />Judge : You have one minute to ask the last question.<br /><br />CSJ : The government should make it easy for the opposition and my point is no. All we asking for the government to come to a set of rules -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant. I've already said, Dr Chee. If you wish this line of questioning, do it outside my courtroom!<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, your honour, what I'm trying to tell you is that it goes to his reputation. It's what I'm here for. (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : It's completely irrelevant. I have ruled on this. Dr Chee, if you persist -<br /><br />(Pause)<br /><br />CSJ : If you believe that if the public was to have a free say in the running of this country -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, same objection. You honour has already ruled earlier on the same point. The question is being repeated again and again.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour. It's something - again as I said makes a lot of difference whether Mr Lee - when he says that his reputation is of a certain standard, that he must, he must then have the courage to be able to face reality and not hide behind, take refuge, in a system that has been designed to ensure that the reputation remains up there, regardless of reality.<br /><br />Singh : That was in the affidavit which was struck out, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I think Mr Lee has made an attempt to answer. Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : I do not want to waste more of the time of the court that's not relevant to this case but may I add that my reputation has been established over a period of 50 years, 49 years in government, and 4 and a half years as the leader of the opposition.<br /><br />CSJ : All good?<br /><br />LKY : It is not for me to say it is all good or bad.<br /><br />CSJ : Would you agree that it's a mixture of good and bad?<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />LKY : Will you allow me to - you've asked me for an answer and I am giving it to you but if its not to your liking, I'm sorry, but you will have to hear me out. At the end of the day, my job is done. I've passed power on and I'm just Minister Mentor. I'm a data-bank. I have no purpose then to see that the system which I've set in place continues to the benefit of Singapore, and part of the proceedings, the painful process is to go through this exercise when you have no questions and you're running away from it. Because at the end of the day, it's not just as you pointed out and Mr Ravi as the SDP counsel submitted, it is the wider public. I'm conscious of that. I think sometimes, you are not.<br /><br />CSJ : If you are talking about the wider public, Mr Lee, then you must also realise that -<br /><br />Judge : No more questions.<br /><br />CSJ : The wider public wants you to leave the political stage. Would you agree?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />This marks the end of the of Chee Soon Juan's cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew. The next next defendent, Chee Siok Chin, was only given 10 minutes to query Lee. <br /><br />Next in Part Vl, the full transcript of Chee Siok Chin's earlier cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong. That's a real classic. Do check back.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 4:36 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, June 07, 2008<br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br />More transcript of the cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew by Chee Soon Juan. The transcript is courtesy of yours truly and is based on the digital recodings obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, turn with me to your AEIC. Did you or did you not say that "CSJ harbours a deep-seated hatred for me?"<br /><br />LKY : Yes, I saw that affidavit.<br /><br />CSJ : Good. That's right, okay.<br /><br />LKY : And you are manifesting it in court today.<br /><br />CSJ : On the contrary, Mr Lee, I don't hate you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. I think you cut a pitiable figure but I don't hate you. You see, I think you derive a lot of pleasure from what you do but I don't think that you find any joy in life.<br /><br />Singh : What's the question? Can I ask the witness, can I ask Dr Chee to frame his question?<br /><br />CSJ : For me, your honour -<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get on with the questions, if he has any. If not he should honourably say "no further questions", your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : The whole entire matter rests because you want to turn this fight into one of a personal duel. I'm not interested. What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy - that is going to last for all eternity.<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there. I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary -<br /><br />CSJ : Standards of the MRT or standards of the rule of law?<br /><br />LKY : Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practised throughout the judiciary.<br /><br />CSJ : What about the International Commission of Jurists? Do you have any comment on them?<br /><br />LKY : There are Western organisations who believe you should only progress and become prosperous by being democratic in their particular way, their prescription -<br /><br />CSJ : Is the International Bar Association an Asian organisation?<br /><br />LKY : It is an international organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Thank you. So you have international organisation and international organisation. You pick one and you don't pick the other.<br /><br />LKY : No, we pick those who will make Singapore strong and prosperous. We do not follow -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you pick those which will make you look good.<br /><br />LKY : No, on the contrary, if those - the attributes that we go for, meritocracy, integrity, the education of the people, the quality of life of the people, facilities that we give them to advance - if those were missing, then all the indicators will soon turn downhill. One reason why we had allowed this altercation to go on is because we are leaning over backwards to allow you enough rope to tie yourself up, and you have successfully done that.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee -<br /><br />LKY : You have a guillotine. You know you have the time of two hours and you are wasting it, frittering it because you have nothing of substance to confront me with.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I had dinner with the Executive Director of the International Bar Association and I have correspondence with them as well. At the end of the Rule of Law Symposium which you were referring to, many of the participants came away very unhappy that the International Bar Association had held its meeting here. And I want to remind you that it continues to be a problem and I believe that the International Bar Association is watching this event very closely.<br /><br />LKY : I'm sure they are and if you were present at my address to the International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : No, I was not present because you know why?<br /><br />LKY : You will know that there was an approbation, and not a disapprobation. I don't have to quote private dinner conversations. That was a public event with 3000 international lawyers there.<br /><br />CSJ : Then also tell me -<br /><br />LKY : May I also add that several of them, including Third World countries have come up and asked to see me, including the Governor of Lagos, to ask me if I could go there and address their International Bar Association.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, and Mr Lee, were those the same participants that attended the Rule of Law symposium and when I stood up to speak, when Mr Jayakumar was present, and the Chair wanted to cut me off and when I turned to the audience, and we said about 3000 or so, and I asked them, "Do you want to hear the rest of the story of the other Singapore?", there was loud and susutained applause to the extent that Mr Frank Kneed (check spelling), the Chairman, had no choice but to allow me to continue. Will you then take it that this same group of lawyers had wanted to hear how the law in Singapore has been misused, has been abused, that frankly, there is no rule of law in Singapore.<br /><br />LKY : That's contrary to all the assessments and if you look at the publication, I can't remember the title that the Supreme Court puts out, there's a whole series of assessment made by seven or eight international rating agencies about Singapore. Also may I add the World Bank has recommended and in fact brought many delegations from many countries to study how the judiciary and the judicial system has progressed in Singapore and is now cited as a model.<br /><br />CSJ : Is this the same World Bank that came and said that Singapore had brought this upon itself when it tried to restrict accredited NGO activists, accredited with the World Bank, coming into Singapore and conducting its activities. Is this the same World Bank that you are talking about?<br /><br />LKY : We do not comply with every request being made because there are certain things which we believe we know better.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, but your government has given the World Bank the green light -<br /><br />LKY : No, just a moment, let me finish. You have asked me this question. Let me finish. If the World Bank did not hold Singapore's judicial system in high esteem, it would not have come out with that report nor would they have brought delegations to come and study us.<br /><br />CSJ : That is not my question, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY : And there are endless delegations which have come to study our system -<br /><br />CSJ : That was not my question, Mr Lee. You brought up the World Bank. I'm asking you, that World Bank that came and said that Singapore should have let in these accredited NGOs because, listen very carefully, because the Singapore Government had an agreement with World Bank to let them in and it was upon the very last minute that someone in your cabinet made that decision to say no.<br /><br />LKY : I do not attend to these matters anymore. I'm only the Minister Mentor. I'm not in charge but I do know that we act in accordance with what we think is the best practice for Singapore and when we disagree with a particular prescription of how we should behave, or how we should conduct Singapore, we have to decide whether that is applicable.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand.<br /><br />LKY : And I know that there many liberal NGOs who are extremely uncomfortable that a system in Singapore which does not comply with their prescriptions is still up and standing and thriving.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, Mr Lee, these NGOs were accredited with the World Bank -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, I'm going to stop this line of cross-examination. It doesn't get us anywhere on the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : Okay, alright, let me move on, you honour. You have a situation where you are again claiming that your integrity is of the highest order, would you agree with that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />LKY : That is the position that I have taken the day I took office in June 1959. I spent more than 50 years of, I would say 49 years of my life, being involved in the strengthening of the system and the institutions that would sustain itself even if there were flaws in the human beings that run the system. That is the reason why we are still what we are.<br /><br />CSJ : I am impressed. Now -<br /><br />LKY : Now, if you are impressed, Mr Chee, you would not have made these allegations.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, is this the same integrity that you are talking about where now, declassified documents from London, that you have -<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant. Mr Lee is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : He's talking about integrity and I would like - Your honour, he has brought up integrity and I just want to be able to pursue that line just a little bit more. Is this the same integrity -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, are you objecting to the line of questioning?<br /><br />CSJ : That you are referring to, Mr Lee, where now we begin to know, and as a young man I didn't -<br /><br />Judhe : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : As a young man I believed you. But now I'm reading declassified documents from London saying that somehow, Mr Lim Chin Siong was in his<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, (inaudible) stop<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Political situation -<br /><br />Judge : Question disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : And that somehow, you had - I beg your pardon, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : You haven't even heard my question yet. I'll make my question and then you can disallow it, your honour.<br /><br />Singh : The question is irrelevant on the little that we already know about it relates to specific instances which absolutely -<br /><br />CSJ : That when you went to London -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, I would ask Dr Chee to show some respect to this court.<br /><br />CSJ : You had allowed what you called "subversive (inaudible)<br /><br />Judge : The question is disallowed.<br /><br />CSJ : To come in play (inaudible) Mr Lim would have been disqualified.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I'm just trying to get at this fact that Mr Lee uses the word integrity and I want to show the courts right now that Mr Lee came into power because of certain things -<br /><br />Judge : Not relevant to the assessment of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : That his government did which deprived his political opponents -<br /><br />Judge : Move on, please!<br /><br />CSJ : Of challenging him. Will you answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : The witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : You don't want to answer that, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : He's not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : That settles the point, doesn't it? Mr Lee, let me come to -<br /><br />Judge : You're -<br /><br />CSJ : I have some more questions, your honour. Mr Lee, will you say categorically, right now, that you will allow a full and fair investigations into all your Internal Security Act detentions over the years?<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Sustained.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, it goes to your integrity. This is what I'm saying. That you say your government has lasted for all these years - you cited 1959 and you brought it up until now - and I'm trying to make the case that no, it was not just popular support. If it was that, grant you, your reputation is of the highest order. What I'm trying to make the case right now is that you had all this power at your disposal, you abused it, used that to lock away all your political opponents -<br /><br />Singh : Objection, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : Used that to crush independent and free media. You used that to make elections almost uncontestable for us and then you stand before the courts and tell the court that my reputation is sterling and I'm saying, Mr Lee, have some humility, have some sense of shame, that you are able to put this into context about everything that you've done in your life and then come clean and tell us the truth right now, that you did all these things.<br /><br />Judge : Irrelevant, move on.<br /><br />CSJ : No response, Mr Lee?<br /><br />Judge : Witness is not required to answer.<br /><br />CSJ : I thought so. Now Mr Lee, you had your Press Secretary issued a statement, I think it was last Friday -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour has already ruled on this point in the cros-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong -<br /><br />CSJ : Did you or did you not allow your press secretary to make this statement because if you did, then we have a problem here, because Madam Yeong, Madam Yong I beg your pardon, is a civil servant. You are suing me, the party and Miss Chee Siok Chin in your private capacity, and if you are doing it in your private capacity, but then you've gotten a civil servant to issue press statements such as this on your behalf using taxpayers' money, on State time, then I think there is a big problem here.<br /><br />LKY : There is no problem at all. I have already stated that technically in accordance to the law I have to sue in my personal capacity with the Prime Minister. But in fact, you are attacking the whole government to become one in which the public will not believe in. What is at stake is whether what you said about the government being run like the NKF is true or not true. And I have a press secretary and she is my press secretary, I said go ahead.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, that's exactly -<br /><br />LKY : And I am entitled to do that. Look, I'm not here to quibble about the technicalities. The technicalities are yes, I'm here in my personal capacity, but the reality is we were advised by our lawyers that we are the two who most represent the government, and that's why we are here.<br /><br />CSJ : I understand that -<br /><br />LKY : And we are defending the government, not just defending ourselves.<br /><br />CSJ : I can see that point.<br /><br />LKY : If Dr Chee sees that point, why pursue it further?<br /><br />CSJ : My question to you is that if you had sued me in your personal capacity - let's not come with the 'ands', 'ifs' or 'buts' because you sign this affidavit as Mr Lee Kuan Yew NRIC number 0000003E, then why is it that you've gotten a civil servant who is paid by the taxpayers to do your private work for you?<br /><br />LKY : Your honour, when the President of the United States of the Prime Minister of Great Britain travels around the country, either his daughter's marriage or whatever it is that's got to be announced, that's his personal matter but he uses his press secretary to put out the news. If that is an abuse of the government, it makes this government less of an upright government, that's for Dr Chee to make the point to the public at the next elections. Let me point out to Dr Chee, we are thinking people and we always consider the consequences of what we do. You asked yesterday whether we are out to make you further bankrupt? So what is the purpose? Let me give you the explanation. You may believe that being a bankrupt does not mean anything but then you're a political juvenile. Mr JB Jeyaretnam knows there two ways in which you can overturn the government. One, constitutionally. The other, illegally and violently. If you want to have any influence, you must get into parliament. You have disqualified yourself, you cannot participate in any elections. As long as you stay in that sterile state, muted yourself politically in the constitutional way and by every further action, the damages go up on you, the longer the number of years you will be disqualified. And Mr Jeyaretnam knew that and he found the resources to pay up and settle his bankruptcy so that he can come back because he knows unless he's qualified, he's not within the constitutional process. Unfortunately, Dr Chee, you have not seen the point.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, may I ask you right now. Whilst you said that I think it's prefectly alright to be a bankrupt. I'm telling you, right now, you don't know what it means to be a bankrupt. I have three young children to take care of. I'm not complaining to you. I will take care of my own affairs. But for you to tell me right now that I should then work to pay off these debts that I owe you, it's disingenuous to say the least because that's what you want me to do. You will sue me over and over and over again and continue to make me work to make the money so that I cannot concentrate doing the political work - I haven't finished - to do the political work, to be able overcome this system which you have put in place, a system that is undemocratic, a system that abuses the rule of law, a system to ensure that you and your party perpetuate its hold on political power. I refused to play this game because that is a game that we cannot win. The only way that we can win is when there is a democratic system, when there is a rule of law and when both parties, ruling and opposition, have equal opportunity to reach out to voters and tell them what is best for Singapore and let the voters decide. Everytime I walk into the public and I decide to communicate with them, to sell my newsapaper, to talk to them, you jail me. You tell me where is the sense in all this? I will take whatever you dish out, Mr Lee, because at the end of the day, I know I have right on my side and as long as justice is with me, there is nothing that you can do to me that will make me back off.<br /><br />LKY : That is his credo, your honour. We believe he has got to play by the rules -<br /><br />CSJ : Rules which you have set up. Rules which you keep changing.<br /><br />LKY : Bankrupts being disqualified is a rule that applies in the United Kingdom, it applies in all the countries that have derived their systems from the British so it was a rule which was in place, not one we created. If you're a bankrupt in England, you cannot participate in elections. Therefore, do not become a bankrupt.<br /><br />CSJ : In other words, what you're saying, therefore do not criticise you -<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : That's the difference because do you see Mr Gordon Brown, or Tony Blair, or Mr George Bush suing their political opponents? Whatever is said, your honour, remains in the political realm and at the end of the day, they allow the public to make the decision. That is the difference, Mr Lee. But in the case of Singapore, you continue to ground your opponents in the most undemocratic of ways. If you could, you would have jailed them. You would have jailed them and you would not have allowed them habeas corpus, you would not allow them to come to court -<br /><br />Singh : What is the question? What is the question, your honour? Really, we are tired of these political speeches which are empty -<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, then I suggest you stop asking the Minister Mentor to continue making these speeches. I'll be happy to comply.<br /><br />Singh : Dr Chee should get a sense of proportion, should understand that this is about question and answer and not about silly speeches which are impressing nobody, your honour. So if Dr Chee wants to ask a qusetion, please do. He'll get the answer.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes, I will, your honour.<br /><br />Continues in Part V<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 12:01 PM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Friday, June 06, 2008<br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />The following were transcribed by me from digital audio transcripts obtained from the High Court.<br /><br />This is a much more complete trancript of the two truncated versions posted on SDP's website here and here.<br /><br />It continues from Part ll.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant. If I were -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, you are again dodging the question.<br /><br />Singh : No, he's trying to answer the question.<br /><br />LKY : You have made serious imputations on the intergrity -<br /><br />CSJ : And then you will answer me.<br /><br />Singh : Let him finish.<br /><br />LKY : You have said that we run this government like the NKF. I'm saying that I sued you, as did my son the Prime Minister, on the advice of counsel that we were two persons most damaged because we represented the party. He as Prime Minister and me as founder of the party. I'm not here to answer irrelevant questions. I'm here to get back this question of integrity. What have you got against me which goes to the integrity of this case? I'm here to answer questions as to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, I'm trying to get to this point where making the comparison between the running of the NKF versus the running of Singapore. I've made the point repeatedly - running of the NKF is done without transparency, with the top officials in it because there was much importance placed on dollars and cents and that it was an authoritarian system that was being run. And this is where I want to ask you some of these questions that -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, on the NKF as was apparent in the cross-examination of Mr Lee Hsien Loong, I had said that I had objected to the line of questioning for the simple reason that we are past the stage of liability. Dr Chee had every opportunity during the summary judgement to produce all his evidence, your honour, about the links between the NKF and the Government and the parallels between the NKF and the Government. He had countless adjournments, opportunities were given to him to bring out that evidence so that the matter can go for a trial and Lee Kuan Yew cross-examined. What did he do, your honour? He walked out of the room. No evidence, nothing. And today, when that issue is all over, he's trying to revive it and it's impermissable, your honour, so I object to this entire line of questioning.<br /><br />LKY : May I help the court -<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />LKY : To come to a conclusion as to the purpose of this cross-examination by asking Dr Chee to look at this testimonial and commendation from Transparency International which was given to me and -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, at this stage, I'm not sure about the procedure but this is highly irregular as I -<br /><br />LKY : I've been asked questions that pertains to my integrity although this is about the quantum of damages. I'm pointing out to Dr Chee that regardless of what he had said, and what many others have said in the opposition about the integrity of the Government, Transparency International which you've heard about, has given me this award and they are a very, very strong voice. Read it.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, I will take it. I've seen it before. I've read it and I will take it that there is no dispute as far as this document is concerned.<br /><br />LKY : No -<br /><br />CSJ : Since you brought it up, Mr Lee, let me -<br /><br />LKY : If that is so -<br /><br />CSJ : I think this is my cross-examination. Mr Lee has produced this document and I like to ask him about this -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can it be marked? Can I mark P1, 2, P1, 3? P11 is the document entitled "The Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, Transparency International Malaysia, the Global Integrity Medal is awarded to the Honourable Senior Minister, the Government of the Republic of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in recognition of the successs -<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Singh, I think you are running down the time, please. Like I've said already, there's no dispute. Let's take it as marked, your honour. Admit it -<br /><br />Singh : I'm identifying the document. "In recognition of his success as Prime Minister in stamping out corruption in public life and transforming Singapore into an island of integrity in his private and official life, he has exemplified -<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, do me a favour, shall we not please go into this. I think Mr Singh wants the media to know of this. I'll be happy to issue them a copy.<br /><br />Singh : Page 1, page 2. I was reading page 1 your honour.<br /><br />Judge : Yes.<br /><br />Singh : At the bottom, your honour. "He has exemplified ..."<br /><br />Davindar Singh spends the next two-and-minutes reading aloud the citation.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, I'll be very honest with you. I'm very surprised, I'm not kidding. I'm very surprised that you would come into court with this. You are now clutching at straws. Let me tell you the background of this -<br /><br />LKY : Transparency International is not a straw organisation.<br /><br />CSJ : Let me, let me finish -<br /><br />Singh : Let the witness answer please.<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International. You had mentioned Peter Eigen. I was in Sao Paulo. I had lunch with Dr Peter Eigen. He is the President of Transparency International. I asked him, "Did you know about this award?" -<br /><br />Singh : Where is this going? Dr Chee seems to be giving evidence -<br /><br />CSJ : No, you have read out -<br /><br />Singh : Sorry, Dr Chee is giving evidence from the Bar of a conversation with someone who is not in court. That is completely inpermissable.<br /><br />CSJ : Peter Eigen told me that he did not authorise Tranparency International Malaysia to give this award to you.<br /><br />Singh : That coming from a person -<br /><br />CSJ : Transparency International, it's in my book which you have struck out. My list of documents -<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, that coming from a person who has proved according to the witness to be a liar.<br /><br />CSJ : Now, one more time Mr Lee, are you or are you not depending on this document to show your integrity in this courtroom? I remind you one more time that you need a lot more than this. I can tell you that this award is not worth the paper that it's written on.<br /><br />LKY: We are also judged by PERC, we also judged by IMD, World Economic Forum and a whole host of other rating agencies.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Are you including International Commission Jurists? Are you including Human Rights Watch? Are you including Amnesty International? Are you including Committee to Project Journalists? Are you including International Federation for Free Exchange? Are you including Southeast Asia Press Alliance? Are you including World Movement for Democracy? Are you including Human Rights Defenders? Are you including World Forum for Democratisation in Asia? Are you including National Endowment for Democracy? Are you including Liberal International? Tell me you cited four, I cited you at least ten. Mr Lee. So do me a favour, let us not pick and choose at what endorsements you get because overall if you're trying to show me that your standing in the world is that high you wouldn't be clutching at straws and producing something from Tunku Aziz. I had a conversation with him -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, what is the question?<br /><br />CSJ: The question is why is Mr Lee depending on such a slipshop - when it is not a verifiable - if you come and tell me that you have been awarded the Nobel Prize I would accept it because that has been vetted. Tell me, who is in this organisation called Transparency International Malaysia? Tell me who are the officer here and when they make awards such as these, what vetting process do they go through?<br /><br />Singh: Can we ask the cross examiner if he has a question? If he has not and he wants to make a speech and maybe for the next one hour left he can make his political speech. If he has no more questions for the witness he should say so.<br /><br />CSJ: Your Honour, my question is this: Mr Lee has brought this ridiculous piece of paper and tells me that he is depending on this to prove his reputation. I'm asking him, does this plaintiff know who is behind this Transparency International Malaysia?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honor, the man is on the Internet and the organisation is also on the website. They asked me in a private letter if I would receive this letter. They were wanting to score a point that it is possible to have in Southeast Asia a clean government. I agreed and I assume he would not sign a document citing TI which rates us always among the top 5 unless it had been authorised to do so. And now you are saying that he is liar, that he has falsely attributed this paragraph to Dr Eigen. Well then I say if you brought Dr Eigen here with an affidavit, then you can demolish Mr Adnan (should be Aziz) but not demolish me because I do not depend on Transparency International. I'm just putting this as an example of what PERC, IMD -<br /><br />CSJ: But we haven't got the records of PERC, IMD and so in line with what Mr Singh said, let's dispense with it. Because if you did, you would produce them.<br /><br />LKY: Ha. The simple answer really is between the competing NGOs, one for HR, one for liberal ideas of how governments should be and rating agencies concerned with actual assessment of government performance - where do investors put their money in. Have not put their money in?If you study the World Bank and IMF reports in countries which are unable and corrupt -<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're deliberately running down the clock. Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />LKY: You are asking me this question -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me pose this question. You had mentioned the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! The witness, continue, finish -<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask you this question -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee! I would like to hear this witness. Please continue.<br /><br />LKY: There are liberal organisations which disagree with the way Singapore runs its social system but we believe we know better. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, otherwise we wouldn't have this courtroom, otherwise you wouldn't be able to be living in an HDB flat. That's the final test.<br /><br />CSJ: I think you're making this leap of logic that even Bruce Hawking would find it hard to follow. You are saying that without you without this entire government, we wouldn't be here? A little presumptuous, don't you think?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I'm saying -<br /><br />CSJ: You see, Mr Lee, in Hong Kong people thrive without you and your system, in Taiwan people thrive without you and your system, in Korea people thrive without you and your system, and you are coming to this court and telling me that what we have right now is all because of you and your system that you have created. I think you are making too much of a presumption.<br /><br />Singh : He should not be afraid of the answers, your honour. He should allow the answers.<br /><br />CSJ : I would like some parity in being able to have this exchange.<br /><br />Singh : Your honour, can the witness be allowed to answer the question because Dr Chee has already asked the question. The witness was answering the question.<br /><br />CSJ : Mr Lee, my question right now is this - Mr Lee, you have cited Political Economic Risk Consultancy.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee.<br /><br />CSJ : Yes.<br /><br />Judge : If you asked a question, I presume you want an answer.<br /><br />CSJ : No, your honour, let me continue with my next question.<br /><br />Singh : The witness has not completed the answer to the earlier question. Now, unless Dr Chee withdraws the question or says he's afraid of the answer, the witness should be allowed to complete.<br /><br />Judge : Yes, please complete your answer.<br /><br />LKY : There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel, but it is a system that have. And you have cited Taiwan, Hong Kong, in which case I ask you to remember that the President of Taiwan, after visiting Singapore earlier this year, said he admires Singapore and he wants Taiwan to become like Singapore, corruption-free. You have raised it. If you like, before these proceedings end, I will find the quote and give it to you. And you have also read, you must have read, you read voraciously, what Premier Wen Jiabao has told Mr Donald Tsang after he came to Singapore. He says, " Please go to Singapore and see what they are doing."<br /><br />CSJ : Now Mr Lee..<br /><br />LKY : And now may I add that the Hong Kong governor Sir Murray MacLehose, came to Singapore to study our anti-corruption laws and our anti-corruption system with the CPIB and he went back to Hong Kong and instituted similar system, and cleaned up the corruption that was seeping Hong Kong society. That is the integrity of Singapore and if we failed on that, the Government should be prosecuted and ousted.<br /><br />CSJ: Is this the same integrity that you are referring to when your government in 1963 arrested all your political opponents under Operation Coldstore?<br /><br />Davinder Singh rises to object.<br /><br />Dr Chee (turning to Mr Singh): Let him answer, he wants to answer.<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />Singh: Thank you, Your Honour.<br /><br />CSJ : He wants to talk about integrity and I want to talk about integrity. Let's talk about integrity, Mr Lee. Is this the same integrity as you are referring to when you jailed Mr Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, when you imprisoned Dr Lim Hock Siew for 17 years..<br /><br />Singh : I object, your honour.<br /><br />CSJ : And when depriving them all –<br /><br />Judge : Question is disallowed.<br /><br />LKY : May I just point out that the final test is what Singapore was when I became Prime Minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now. We had less that a $100 million in the kitty. Today, between the GIC, Temasek and all the assets that we have. I'm not disclosing this but Global Financial Services assessed Singapore's sovereign wealth fund at over US$300 billion.<br /><br />CSJ : And -<br /><br />LKY : And had we not run such a government, we wouldn't have had these funds nor would we have the strength to defend the Singapore dollar whatever the speculators do nor would we have the infrastructure that we have including this court where we offer people like Dr Chee the luxury of all the facilities including digital transcripts that come up as the proceedings go on.<br /><br />CSJ : You see, Mr Lee, my problem with this -<br /><br />LKY : These are the manifestations -<br /><br />CSJ : Sure -<br /><br />LKY : Of the basic policy. Let me finish. You've asked me and I'm pointing out that final test is not Transparency International, PERC, IMD, IMF but the solid actions, the solid results of the lives of the people and what Singapore is, and what you're trying to do is to demolish it.<br /><br />CSJ : That is complete nonsense.<br /><br />LKY : And have the corruption that exist in other places.<br /><br />CSJ : Your honour, let me take you back. I've told you already. What you are saying is that what you have done - the arrests of all your political opponents, the closing down of an independent and free media, all your shenanigans including making sure that I'm not allowed to get up on stage during an election rally, my party's rally, and what you've done, increasing the election deposit, by introducing the GRC - You are saying that all that is justified because now $3 billion -<br /><br />LKY : $300 billion dollars.<br /><br />CSJ : I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. $300 billion in our kitty, which by the way, I remind you, you will not let the people enjoy its fruits.<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee -<br /><br />CSJ : You have continue to help -<br /><br />Judge : Dr Chee, these questions are irrelevant. I've already indicated that they are not to be pursued in this courtroom. This is not the proper forum. There is no requirement for the witness to answer the question. Move on please.<br /><br />Continues in Part lV<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Read also :<br /><br />David Vs Goliath In Court<br /><br />Restrictions Follow Critics To Cyberspace<br /><br />What Is Chee Soon Juan's Game Plan?<br /><br />US blogger released on bail in Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 5:32 PM 1 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, June 02, 2008<br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"And if you go over the line, if you defame us, we're prepared to sue you, go into the witness box and be cross-examined. You can brief the best lawyers and demolish us. If I'm involved, I go to the witness box. And you can question me, not only on the particular defamatory issue, but all issues in my life."<br /><br />- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Time Magazine, Dec 2005 <br /><br /><br />The following exchange was first posted on SDP website here. The transcript is based on the digital audio recordings obtained from the High Court. Again, as a watcher in the public gallery that day, I can attest that they are true.<br /><br />I will post as much of the available transcripts here for purpose of future reference. Suffice to say it is unlikely that such an encounter will ever take place again in the Singapore courts, or for that matter, in any venue open to public scrutiny.<br /><br />Meanwhile, US lawyer Gopalan Nair was arrested by the police in his Serangoon Road hotel on Saturday night and will be charged in court today.<br /><br />Latest : Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin have been sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively for contempt of court. The sentences were meted out by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, who also presided over the defamation hearings. The Chees are expected to file appeals on Wednesday.<br /><br />And according to this reuters report, Gopalan Nair will be detained for the next 7 days pending further investigations.<br /><br />For updates of Gopalan Nair's arrest and detention, visit his lawyer's blog.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: (pause)...Sorry?<br /><br />CSJ: We get to meet at last.<br /><br />LKY: I thought we've met many other times across election rallies.<br /><br />CSJ: Your memory fails you. I've never met you before and you know why? Because you keep avoiding me. (Mr Lee laughs) Well, we have this opportunity right now. Let me ask you this question. You gave an interview saying: "If you defame us, and if I'm involved, I go to the the witness box and you can question me not only on the particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life." Do you stand by your words?<br /><br />LKY: I do.<br /><br />CSJ: Good. In the course of the cross-examination, will you then answer questions not just on this particular defamation issue, but on all issues in your life -- and I don't mean your personal life, I mean your political life? Will you stand by that?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, we appeared in court when the issue was whether or not the summary judgment was proper. That was the time to challenge --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, that was not my question.<br /><br />Judge: Allow the witness to answer. Mr Lee, please go on.<br /><br />LKY: I have to answer. I'm a lawyer. I no longer practice the law. I know your purpose. You dodged that occasion and you're trying -- Dr Chee is trying today when the issue is the question of quantum of damages, it's not liability. I'm here to answer questions relating to the quantum of damages.<br /><br />CSJ: Thank you. Then why is it that you say you will go to the witness box --<br /><br />LKY: I have already explained that, Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: -- and answer questions not just particular to this defamation issue but on all issues of your life. Now tell me, are those just brave words meant for public consumption and in this situation right now you're turning tail and running?<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha, no Your Honour --<br /><br />CSJ: Good. Then you won't mind me asking you why is it that you make this application to cut short your cross-examination precisely when you walk in at noon and say that you have to be stopped in the cross-examination by 2:15 giving me. the defence, only two hours and fifteen minutes, and then insisting that all of us can't go for lunch. And on top of that refusing to tell the court what this "important matter" you have this afternoon is.<br /><br />LKY: That's...Your Honour...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: I'm lost for words too as I think you are right now.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause; Mr Lee was seen opening his mouth to answer but no words came out)<br /><br />CSJ: Go ahead, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(pause)<br /><br />CSJ: No answer? That settles the question then.<br /><br />LKY: Ha ha ha.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee!<br /><br />CSJ: Fine, let Mr Lee continue. I'm just waiting. He's probably lost for words because he doesn't quite know what to say at this stage.<br /><br />Judge: If you keep interrupting the witness...Yes, Mr Lee.<br /><br />LKY: ...(even longer pause)<br /><br />CSJ: Please don't run down the clock. I've only got a few minutes.<br /><br />At this stage, Mr Davinder Singh jumped in to bail out Mr Lee. <br /><br />Singh: What is the question? Dr Chee has made so many points in his speech. He has already been told that the time to cross-examine the witness was during the summary judgment. If he had leave to defend. All issues would have been open for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that Dr Chee had dodged that application and is now trying through the back door to introduce impermissible material. The witness said he is here as he said to answer questions on quantum. Dr Chee should really get on with the issue of quantum.<br /><br />CSJ: Let me ask the question again. Mr Lee, you have said that you are here to answer these questions and I say that in that case why did you make an application to, halfway through the session, want the court to cut short this entire hearing. Now, I remind you that we have got until the end of tomorow, the end of tomorrow. So we have one-and-a-half days. But you insist that we have to finish by 2:15 for you to attend to some matters that you won't even reveal to the court. Now I ask you now does this sound like somebody who's willing to come to court and meet and resolve the issues?<br /><br />LKY: Your Honour, I had a message from one of my counsel's aides to say that I should be in court by here 2 o'clock - by 12 o'clock because Your Honour has imposed a guillotine that the cross-examination of the prime minister would end at twelve. So I turn up at twelve. I was told that the guillotine allowed - had already been late he would be given 2 hours. I suggest - I asked my counsel to request the court to finish this two hours so that I can attend to some important matters. There's no disadvantage to anybody to be sitting here and finishing off this cross-examination within the two hours. What I do not want to be a party to is a deliberate abuse of the process, of the proceedings of the court by delaying tactics.<br /><br />CSJ: So, Mr Lee --<br /><br />LKY: And by asking irrelevant questions, Dr Chee is running out the gullotine. At the end of the day, we've had this confrontation face to face have you thrown any dirt, have you dug up any scandal? Are you still saying as you've said before that this government is run like the NKF?<br /><br />CSJ: Now, Mr Lee, let me try to --<br /><br />LKY: No, we are here because you have said that --<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, I'm going to ask you this question and I wish you'd just stick to the questions that I pose to you. I'm asking you why did you come to court --<br /><br />LKY: Because I was asked --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me rephrase my question. Are you telling the court that you had nothing to do with the curtailment of this entire process?<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, I made the application this morning and Your Honour would remembers that I said I was very troubled with what the Chees did yesterday and that it was quite apparent that they had nothing to ask which was of any relevance and that unfortunately or otherwise has been proven in this exchange. And I said, Your Honour, that the whole purpose of the cross-examination was to insult, annoy and to scandalise and that's also been proven true. For that reason, I had asked that there be a guillotine. Your Honour had full powers to control the proceedings. The order has already been made and I don't see why this witness should be asked to explain something that was the subject of my application and Your Honour's order.<br /><br />CSJ: Do you see the game that's being played here, Mr Lee? Do you see how you are beginning to hide behind your counsel and then claim, "Look, I'm willing to confront them. It's my counsel." Now I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Right here, right now, tell Mr Davnder Singh "Don't interrupt. I will answer these questions as they are put to me right now."<br /><br />LKY: Heh-heh. Your Honour, I've briefed counsel, I've always found it's never wise to be my own lawyer in my own case. I know that some perople believe that they can do otherwise, and I'm quite sure that Dr Chee is making a very great impression on all the reporters in this court of how he is better than Mr Ravi --<br /><br />CSJ: I think you meant Mr Singh.<br /><br />LKY: I believe Mr Singh is better qualified to deal with the legalities of this case.<br /><br />CSJ: Well, I should hope so with all the training that he's got. Now, coming back to my question, Mr Lee, is your answer no, that you wll not tell Mr Singh: "Stay out of this. Let me answer my question because --<br /><br />LKY: I --<br /><br />CSJ: Let me finish my question -- because you have said -- and I repeat to you -- that you will answer not only questions about the "particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life."<br /><br />LKY: Yes...as long as that was what was an issue and that was the, it was an issue in the summary judgement was appealed against. [Note how garbled the answer is.] And we turned up for the hearing but you dodged the hearing.<br /><br />CSJ: Mr Lee, you are not unintelligent.<br /><br />LKY: Thank you.<br /><br />CSJ: You knew precisely what you meant and what you mean is: "Come and ask me all these questions that doesn't pertain to this defamation suit and I will answer you because my entire standing, inlcuding the standing of this government, is at stake." Is that not correct?<br /><br />LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:24 AM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 31, 2008<br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br /><br /><br />The following excerpts of court transcripts were first posted on SDP's website here and here. I was in the public gallery when the exchange took place so I can testify that they are true. I am posting them here again for sake of posterity.<br /><br />If you don't know the background of this case, read this, this, this and this. Meanwhile, another member of the public gallery that day, Gopalan Nair - a former dissident who has since taken up US citizenship - has issued a challenge to PM Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee Kuan Yew to sue him for libel. Read his account of the trial here.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Chee (to Lee Hsien Loong): Would you refer to pg 192 of your AEIC, para 3 and read it to us.<br /><br />Mr Lee Hsien Loong starts reading. Just before he gets to the words he uttered about fixing the opposition and buying over his supporters, Mr Davinder Singh stands up.<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: I’ll read it.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, you read it.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee please tell us the relevance.<br /><br />Chee: This paragraph will show it's true of him -<br /><br />Judge Move on, the question is disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: He has used words like "fix" and "buy votes". He's here to tell me that his reputation is based on so much. I’m here to demolish it, when he buys votes -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Let it be recorded then. Mr Lee, come out and don’t hide behind your counsel. You have every opportunity to answer the questions. You allow your counsel to cover -<br /><br />Singh: Objection, Your Honour.<br /><br />Judge: Court has taken note of Dr Chee’s conduct.<br /><br />Chee: Mr Lee, please refer to pg 39 of your AEIC sub-heading "lack of transparency." Do you agree with the last line and last paragraph that the GIC operates in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection. Dr Chee is seeking to reopen the issue. This article relates to the offending words. The meaning has been taken to be false. The question of liability is done.<br /><br />Chee: Turn then to pg 75 of your AEIC, bottom of the page. Is the Government transparent? Do you agree with this statement?<br /><br />Singh: I object.<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Do you believe the funds belongs to the people?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevent.<br /><br />Chee: Same line and reason, that he is the Prime Minister and takes pride in the integrity -<br /><br />Singh: The question is on the matter of Assesment of Damages -<br /><br />Judge: Move on, Dr Chee.<br /><br />Chee: You are the Deputy or the Vice Chairman of the GIC?<br /><br />Singh: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: I want to establish that he says his reputation is sterling -<br /><br />Singh: My client didn’t say that.<br /><br />Judge: Yes.<br /><br />Chee: How and where you have invested the GIC funds?<br /><br />Judge: Move on.<br /><br />Chee: Were you aware of the scandal at NKF -<br /><br />Singh: Relevancy? NKF is a matter of liability.<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: Then you agree that T T Durai's salary was excessive?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree the salary -<br /><br />Singh: Your Honour, my client was not aware of the NKF scandal -<br /><br />Judge: Irrelevant.<br /><br />Chee: If T T Durai had a summary judgement -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the openness of the Government -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: I disagree as the witness was a Prime Minister during the period and argued in Parliament -<br /><br />Singh: Maybe the Health Ministry was misled and my client did not know. The Government did proceed to investigate the matter.<br /><br />Chee: The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health made comments and continued leading the people to donate to the NKF. You were the Prime Minister -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: Did you know the warning signals -<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Chee: These were raised in Parliament and whether he was sleeping like some of his colleagues -<br /><br />Singh: That is not necessary and insulting -<br /><br />Judge: Dr Chee, move on.<br /><br />Singh: I want to remind Dr Chee of the injunction against repeating -<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree if the salary is too much?<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: Do you think that your Ministers spend too much -<br /><br />Judge: Disallowed.<br /><br />Chee: I put to you that the PAP is bent on greed and power.<br /><br />Singh Objection.<br /><br />Judge: Sustained.<br /><br />Chee Refer to pg 9 of your AEIC. Is the information on the cost of labour of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Is information on the cost of material of building HDB flats available?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Chee: Do you agree that the HDB is operating in secrecy?<br /><br />Singh: Objection.<br /><br />Judge Sustained.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 10:48 PM 9 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Monday, May 19, 2008<br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Go to one-nation-under-lee.org to watch or download all available formats of the video.<br /><br />Directed by Seelan Palay under Honest Productions.<br /><br />___________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Singapore to Dissident Leader: Shut Up<br /><br />The senior Lee, now the “minister mentor,” who served as Singaporean prime minister from 1969 to 1990, once won extra damages from a Singaporean judge for what the judge considered too rigorous a cross-examination by a defense lawyer.<br /><br />As an example of how prickly the 84-year-old Lee and his government can be, last Saturday, officials from the Media Development Authority, which regulates the media and censors films for public broadcast, descended on a room in the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel where about 70 opposition figures were holding a fundraising event and private screening of a 45-minute film of titled “One Nation Under Lee,” which is critical of the former premier’s rise to power and subsequent crackdown on his opponents. The officials seized the DVD.<br /><br />Read full article here.<br />______________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />Libel case shows Singapore's limits<br /><br />Another opposition party would then disappear from the scene, joining a long list of previous challengers to Lee's dominance of Singapore politics since he became its prime minister in 1959.<br /><br />The list is handily presented in a new 45-minute documentary video by activist Seelan Pillay, One Nation Under Lee, which can be viewed on a number of websites and blogs, including one called Singabloodypore.<br /><br />A private screening at the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel in Singapore last Saturday was interrupted by three officials from the Media Development Authority, who seized the DVD and equipment, after warning that under the Films Act it was an offence "to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate".<br /><br />Full article here.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Singapore authorities confiscate film on Minister Mentor at private screening<br /><br />22 May 2008<br />Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Bangkok<br /><br />Singapore authorities attempted to stop a private screening of a critical film on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on 17 May 2008, alleging that the screening violated the Films Act, according to news reports.<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act forbids the screening of a film that has not been vetted by the censors, punishing violators with a maximum fine of S$40,000 (approx. US$29,428), or jail term of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />Three officers from the Media Development Authority (MDA), claiming they were acting on a "tip-off", went to the hotel where the film, "One nation under Lee", was being premiered and requested for the disc, alleging that it has not been vetted by the censors.<br /><br />The night before the screening, the Board of Film Censors had warned the organisers of the offence they would be committing under the law if they had not submitted the film for approval.<br /><br />The 45-minute film is produced and directed by artist/activist Seelan Palay. It documents former premier Lee's rise to power through a host of restrictive measures on civil liberties, criticises the economic and political governance of the ruling party and pays tribute to the efforts of activists and citizens who persist in claiming and exercising their democratic rights. The film is available online here.<br /><br />The MDA officers claimed that the action was a matter of compliance and not an objection to the content of the film. Yet, when organiser Chee Siok Chin, a leading member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, argued that the broad terms of the law would also subject such censorship to every wedding dinner that showed videos of the happy couple, one of the officials said, "This is not the same as a wedding dinner", clearly showing otherwise.<br /><br />The MDA officials later brought in plainclothes officers in an attempt to hold the organisers for obstruction of justice. They left, however, when Chee agreed to hand over the film as the screening had fortunately ended by then.<br /><br />However, the officials returned moments later for the projector, they were faced with a spirited refusal by the organisers and the 70-strong audience, who insisted they had no right to the equipment. A recording of what transpired is available here.<br /><br />The authorities are reportedly investigating the screening.<br /><br />The Singapore government has long maintained a tight rein on free expression in the country, allegedly in the interest of maintaining public order and social harmony in the tiny city-state of 4.6 million people. The local media are controlled through ownership, while foreign media and the opposition leaders are given a beating in the courts through successful civil defamation suits, sending a chilling message to the citizens. Even so, pockets of civil society continue to find creative ways of claiming their right to expression, from holding demonstrations of one to four (the law imposes a permit for gatherings of five or more, which is often refused to the opposition) and expressing themselves through the arts.<br /><br /><br />Singapore probes political film on Lee Kuan Yew<br /><br />SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's media regulator is investigating the screening of a political film that an opposition party said critically examines the city-state's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.<br /><br />The film, "One Nation Under Lee", was made by a group of political activists and looks at the rise of Lee and his relationship with the media, Chee Siok Chin, a senior member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), told Reuters.<br /><br />It was screened to an audience of about 70 at an opposition party fundraising event last week, before Singapore's media regulator interrupted the showing and took the film, said Chee, the event organiser.<br /><br />"After investigation, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) proceeded to serve a notice to the appropriate person that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition," Tan Chiu Kee of the BFC said in a statement late on Tuesday, adding that a copy had been handed to officials.<br /><br />Singapore, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party (PAP) for over 40 years, bans the production and screening of all political films, imposing a maximum fine of S$100,000 ($73,260) or a jail term of two years on those caught.<br /><br />Lee Kuan Yew, 84, is credited with policies that have been critical to making Singapore one of the region's most prosperous countries, but has been criticised by human rights groups for his use of lawsuits against political opponents and the media.<br /><br /><br />Film seized by censors after organisers went ahead with screening despite being warned<br /><br />The Straits Times, Singapore<br />by Sue-Ann Chia<br /><br />A 45-MINUTE film portraying Singapore as lacking in press and political freedoms is under investigation by the Board of Film Censors (BFC).<br /><br />Titled One Nation Under Lee, the film was being screened to an audience of about 70 at the Peninsula Excelsior Hotel last Saturday when officials from the BFC turned up to seize the film.<br /><br />Organisers of the screening, led by Ms Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party, argued it was a private event, but BFC officials said they had been tipped off that the film had not been passed by the censors and they had the right to investigate.<br /><br />The police were called in when negotiations hit a stalemate.<br /><br />Ms Chee eventually let BFC officials into the room and handed over the film.<br /><br />The altercation was filmed and put online on video-sharing site YouTube.<br /><br />Guests paid $20 each to attend the screening-cum-lunch, said Mr Martyn See, a film-maker who was in the audience.<br /><br />Produced by 23-year-old political activist Seelan Palay, the film depicts a Singapore tightly controlled by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and includes a call for civil disobedience.<br /><br />It also includes interviews with former political detainee Said Zahari and opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam.<br /><br />Ms Chee told The Straits Times: 'It seems bizarre that the authorities would come to this private event. At a wedding, they don't expect people to send in their videos being screened for classification. What's the difference here?'<br /><br />Section 21(1)(b) of the Films Act makes it an offence to exhibit a film that has not been approved for exhibition. The penalty is a fine of up to $40,000, or jail of up to six months, or both.<br /><br />BFC assistant licensing officer Tan Chiu Kee said yesterday it was alerted last Thursday to the forthcoming screening of One Nation Under Lee.<br /><br />As no film of that title had been submitted for classification, and the BFC had not issued any certificate for a film with that title, it launched an investigation, and later issued a warning to the 'appropriate person'.<br /><br />Ms Chee confirmed that a BFC official told her of the offence at 9pm last Friday.<br /><br />Still, the screening proceeded the next day. So BFC officials went to the event to investigate, said Mr Tan.<br /><br />'The persons connected with the event had chosen to disregard the BFC's notices...that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition,' said Mr Tan, adding that investigations are continuing.<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:20 AM 7 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screening <br />Part l<br /><br /><br /><br />Part ll<br /><br /><br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 9:10 AM 0 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Saturday, May 17, 2008<br />Censors and police seize video at private screening <br />Complete videos of the seized film and the seizing have been uploaded. Go to main page.<br /><br /><br />Censorship enforcement in Singapore sank to a new low today as officers from the Board of Film Censors (a department of the MDA) turned up at Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel's Tulip Room to demand that organisers of a film screening hand over the video for classification.<br /><br />The invitation for the screening of "One Nation Under Lee" had been circulated via email with the explicit note that it was to be a private function. Still, the BFC delivered a letter to the Singapore Democratic Party's office last night, warning the organisers that Section 14 of Films Act requires all films (and the Act do mean ALL videos, including those stored on your mobile phone) to be submitted to the Board for classification.<br /><br />Undeterred, the organisers pressed on with the screening today. Just before it began at 2pm, officers from the Board of Film Censors showed up at the door to serve the reminder. Still, the 45 minute video was screened in its entirety, interrupted periodically by raised voices outside the hall. Apparently, plainclothes police officers were called in to seize the video as the organisers had refused to budge.<br /><br />Just as the screening ended, BFC officers were ushered into the hall, given microphones and were told to explain to the audience, numbering about 80, about their intentions. They didn't use the PA system, but were heard uttering something about wanting to seize the video, which were eventually given to them. Minutes later, another government officer came in, muttering about wanting to see the projector. After being repeatedly told that he could not, he left in a puff.<br /><br />The film itself was surprisingly slick and compelling but the off-screen drama was the highlight for me. Life imiatates art, and vice versa. All in all, a pretty entertaining afternoon.<br /><br />I'm sure there'll be photos, videos and more reports coming up soon about today's drama. Check back for link updates.<br /><br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />Film on Lee Kuan Yew seized by MDA<br /><br />Government officials disrupt private screening of film on LKY<br /><br />Pictures here<br /><br />The gatecrashers<br /><br />MDA没收私人放映录像<br /><br />This is Singapore<br /><br />Posted by Martyn See at 6:52 PM 2 comments <br /><br /><br /><br />Older Posts Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Videos<br />One Nation Under Lee <br />Speakers Cornered <br />Nation Builders <br />Zahari's 17 Years (banned) <br />Singapore Rebel (banned) <br />Riot police vs four silent protesters <br />Said Zahari's Book Launch <br />Speakers Cornered teaser <br /> Contact<br />singapore_rebel{at}yahoo.com <br /> Blogs that promote Asian Values<br />Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy <br />International Campaign for Tibet <br />Secret Tibet <br />Students for a free Tibet <br />Truth about China <br />China e-Lobby <br />Malaysia Today <br />Jeff Ooi, Malaysia <br />Tian Chua, Malaysia <br />Elizabeth Wong, Malaysia <br />Infernal Ramblings. Malaysia <br />Indonesia Matters <br />Burma Digest <br />Burma Underground <br />Ki Media, Cambodia <br />Southeast Asian Press Alliance <br />Politics from Taiwan <br />Taiwan Matters <br />View from Taiwan <br />Rebecca MacKinnon <br />For a Democratic Nepal <br />North Korea zone <br />Angry Chinese Blogger <br />Glutter, HK <br /> Local Voices<br />Singabloodypore <br />The Online Citizen <br />Singapore Daily <br />Singapore Surf <br />Yawning Bread <br />Mr Wang <br />Sg Review yahoo group <br />Sg Politics <br />Pseudonymity <br />My sketchbook <br />Molly Meek <br />Singapore Election Watch <br />Singapore Alternatives <br />Sg Review <br />Singapore Dissident <br />Singapore Window <br />The Orchid Revolution <br /> Movie links<br />Cinema showtimes <br />Sinema Sg <br />SIFF <br />Sg Film forum <br /> Blog Archive<br />▼ 2008 (21) <br />▼ June (4) <br />Transcript part V : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lV : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part lll : CSJ vs LKY <br />Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY <br />► May (5) <br />Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees <br />Video : One Nation Under Lee <br />Videos : Censors and police disrupt private screen... <br />Censors and police seize video at private screenin... <br />Filmmaker submits six videos featuring political p... <br />► April (6) <br />Singapore Government's biggest blockbuster since 1... <br />Speakers Cornered rated NC16 by censors <br />An open invitation to political bloggers <br />Gay Muslim filmmaker calls Singapore's regime "alm... <br />Censors ban four foreign films <br />Activists screen political films in "private funct... <br />► March (2) <br />Rebels of the Malaysian political tsunami <br />The greatest jailbreak, or the boldest story ever ... <br />► February (3) <br />Censorship under the PAP : 1959 - 2008 <br />Film ban hurts Singapore's press freedom <br />Film fest disqualifies Martyn See's film <br />► January (1) <br />This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br />► 2007 (39) <br />► December (3) <br />Twice banned filmmaker submits third film <br />Videos : Singaporean lawyers petition; Malaysian l... <br />Speakers Cornered - Complete video now unleashed <br />► November (2) <br />Video : Burmese citizens mount protest on Orchard ... <br />Singapore police abducts activists in daylight <br />► October (5) <br />One Country, Two Systems - Part ll <br />Videos of bloody crackdown in Burma <br />One Country, Two Systems <br />Guard dogs of St. Martin's Drive <br />Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in ... <br />► September (5) <br />By George, do you have blood on your hands? <br />Martyn See speaks out on police probe, foreign "in... <br />Banned film to screen in Johor Bahru <br />Singaporean works feature in Malaysian human right... <br />Said Zahari's book available in Singapore <br />► August (1) <br />Nation Builders - A new video by Martyn See <br />► July (4) <br />The Long Nightmare - Foreward excerpts <br />Don't shade the past, tell it like it is, says LKY... <br />Founding PAP member and ex-political prisoner to p... <br />Video : Said Zahari launches book <br />► June (3) <br />Former political prisoner Said Zahari to launch bo... <br />'Singapore You Are Not My Country' <br />They came first for the communists ... <br />► May (1) <br />"Marxist Conspiracy" arrests - 20 years on <br />► April (7) <br />Film ban "ineffective and counter-productive" <br />RSF urges Singapore to lift ban <br />All this censorship makes no sense : MM Lee <br />'Zahari's 17 Years' now online <br />Film ban strange, says Said Zahari <br />► March (4) <br />► February (3) <br />► January (1) <br />► 2006 (20) <br />► December (1) <br />► November (2) <br />► October (2) <br />► September (2) <br />► August (1) <br />► July (1) <br />► May (2) <br />► April (3) <br />► March (1) <br />► February (2) <br />► January (3) <br />► 2005 (77) <br />► December (2) <br />► November (3) <br />► October (4) <br />► September (11) <br />► August (14) <br />► July (10) <br />► June (7) <br />► May (12) <br />► April (6) <br />► March (6) <br />► January (2) <br />► 2004 (3) <br />► November (3) <br /> Martyn See <br />I'm a Singaporean who survived 15 months of police investigation for the making of banned short film 'Singapore Rebel', deemed to be an illegal political film under the law. Has since followed up with 'Zahari's 17 Years', a documentary on an ex-political detainee, and 'Speakers Cornered', a chronology of brief scenes from a street corner standoff between pro-democracy activists and the police. Otherwise, he is mostly a law-abiding Singaporean video editor. Feature editing credits include Mee Pok Man (1994, Eric Khoo) That One No Enough (2000, Jack Neo) I Do I Do (2005, Wen Hui, Jack Neo) Singapore Gaga (2005,Tan Pin Pin) Just Follow Law (2007, Jack Neo) <br />View my complete profileUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0