http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discuss-singapore/message/17302
> Closing submissions
>
> Before I had left for the US for my fellowship, I had informed the
> courts on 31 January 2004 that I would be away from February until
> August 2004 and to postpone all matters regarding the case until my
> return.
Be real. Chee is saying he can just inform others his schedule and
expect others to work around it. He should have called a meeting to
settle the date for the case or get an agreement to postpone all
matters before he left for his fellowship.
>
> Despite knowing this, the plaintiffs wrote to the court on 4 February
> and asked for the hearing dates to be fixed. The courts obliged and
> set 10 February for all parties to appear before it to take dates
> even though it had received my letter indicating that I would be away.
What does Chee has to show that the plaintiffs had received the
information?
>
> Drew & Napier, the law firm that represents Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr
> Goh Chok Tong, claims that it had faxed me their letter of 4
> February. I did not see the letter. If I had seen it I would have
> been alerted to the session on 10 February. There are three important
> things to note regarding this letter that was supposedly faxed to me:
>
> - one, Drew & Napier always send their correspondence to me via more
> than one mode: by fax, by post, and by hand. In addition, whenever it
> sent a document by hand or by post, the firm would have it delivered
> to both my office and home. This one particular letter was only faxed
> to my office.
>
> - two, in the bundle of documents that the plaintiffs had compiled
> for the hearing, the palintiffs' counsel curiously omitted to include
> this letter when it is always very meticulous about presenting each
> and every document.
>
> - three, during my cross-examination Mr Davinder Singh showed me a
> copy of the letter which had the date of transmission printed over
> it. Mr Singh then quickly took back the letter and did not leave a
> copy of it for me even though I had requested for one.
Those are good points. Chee would benefit if he discloses more
details about this part of the cross-examiniation.
>
> There are several questions that the plaintiffs and their counsel, Mr
> Singh, should answer:
>
> - one, why did Mr Lee and Mr Goh insist on asking the court to set
> the dates for the hearing despite knowing that I was going to be away
> and not be able to attend the session?
How will Chee prove that Goh and Lee knew of his schedule or that they
were sure Chee could not change his schedule?
>
> - two, why was the 4-February letter only faxed to me (if it was in
> fact faxed) when other letters were always also sent by post and/or
> by hand to my office and home?
>
> - three, how did he obtain the transmission information printed over
> the letter? Would he be willing to allow me to verify the
> authenticity of the transmission information?
It means the copy shown is a fax confirmation page with the letter as
content.
>
> I had applied to cross-examine the plaintiffs so that I could settle
> these issues because it runs into the question of whether they had
> deliberately schemed to get me to miss the session of 10 February
> when the dates for the hearing were fixed. It was also an issue that
> the plaintiffs had canvassed during the hearing. But the judge
> refused to allow me to call Mr Lee, Mr Goh and Mr Singh to the stand.
Chee should have cross-examine the staff who handle the fax and
arrange for the Feb 4th meeting. Those are the key persons to start with.
>
> The plaintiffs' counsel also made an issue of the fact that I had not
> mentioned my visiting Taiwan on my way to the US and my trip to Hong
> Kong in August 2004 in my affidavit. The truth of the matter is that
> my stopover in Taiwan on my way to the US was to give my children a
> break in the long journey and for them and my wife to see my in-laws.
This is more a trip to meet the in-laws.
>
> My trip to Hong Kong was an ARDA mission to assess the political
> situation in the Chinese city. In other words, I was on official
> business for the organization. Because of this ARDA would pay, as it
> does for all of its volunteers, expenses for the trip. But having to
> come back to Singapore from the US to attend a hearing and then to
> return would have meant that I would have to pay the expenses myself
> which I cannot afford.
>
> Besides, what do my stopover in Taiwan in February and my visit to
> Hong Kong on 2-3 August have anything to do with 6 September – the
> date of the hearing which I have asked to be postponed. Mr Singh was
> scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up with facts that were
> wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. This was done purely for the
> benefit of the local media which lapped everything up to present
> as "facts" to the public.
It is a matter of whether Chee really did not have time to prepare and
attend the court session or he was using other events as excuse.
>
> After Taiwan I arrived in the US on 19 February, ahead on my
> fellowship on 1 March. The reason is that I had to look for housing,
> school for my eldest daughter, and so on. Mr Singh said that I had
> left early and gave the impression that my fellowship started in
> February 2004. Again he was saying this for the reporters present
> because he knew full well that when one is going away for several
> months and with young children, one would need to leave early to take
> care of the logistical arrangements I mentioned.
Who pay for Chee's family members airfare to US and Taiwan, his
daughter's school fee, and his wife medical/delivery expenses if Chee
could not afford to fly back to Singapore as he claimed. What is the
total amount?
>
> Following the completion of my fellowship, I stayed on in the US
> because I had to complete some of the fellowship-related assignments
> I had taken up while there as well as to obtain birth and travel
> documents for our newborn which took several weeks to do. Despite
> this, Mr Singh continued with his lies that I had deliberately stayed
> in the US for a holiday to avoid the hearing.
>
> I left the US and arrived in Taiwan on 31 August. I had to attend an
> ARDA meeting on 9 September. The meeting was fixed before I came to
> learn of the hearing dates fixed for 6-8 September.
>
> It was not possible for me to return to Singapore for the hearing
> because it would mean that I would miss the ARDA meeting which
> involved members from several other countries coming to Taipei.
> Besides, I could not leave my three children with my wife and her
> parents as my in-laws were not in the best of health.
They could have returned to Singapore early or chose not leave Spore
in the first place.
>
> Based on the following facts:
>
> - that I had asked the courts to hold off all proceedings until after
> my return from my fellowship,
>
> - that the plaintiffs and the courts had arranged for a time to set
> the hearing dates in my absence after I had informed them that I was
> going to be away,
>
> - that the ARDA meeting on 9 September was fixed before I eventually
> came to learn of the hearing dates,
Why Chee leave out details of when he knew of the Sept hearing dates
and when he started fixing the ARDA meeting dates? Why he did not
check his mails?
>
> is it unreasonable for me to ask the courts to postpone the hearing?
> After all I was asking for just a few weeks, not months.
>
> How would the postponement of the hearing by a few weeks prejudice
> the plaintiffs' case? If the courts had granted my request, the
> hearing could have taken place and be disposed of in early October
> 2004 at the very latest.
>
> I would then be able to cross-examine the very two people who have
> accused me of defaming them and wanting close to one million dollars
> in damages. I have already been denied of an open trial in the case
> and for there to be some semblance of justice, I should be able to
> participate in the hearing for assessment of damages.
>
> Without the benefit of the above closing arguments, however, the
> judge went ahead and dismissed Dr Chee's application to have the
> hearing reconvened. He said that he did not hear any good
> explanations from the SDP secretary-general. How could he when he
> denied Dr Chee the right to have time to prepare the material?
>
> Now compare how the Straits Times reported the matter. At the end of
> the report, Ms Chia wrote: "Dr Chee did not respond when given the
> opportunity to do so, after which Justice Kan gave his ruling." This
> is a lie. Dr Chee repeatedly stood up and challenged the judge on his
> decision to not allow Dr Chee to prepare and present his submissions.
>
>
> High Court dismisses Chee's application
> Straits Times
> Sue-Ann Chia
> 6 November 2004
>
>