CSJ--bankruptcy?& praised in NSW LegislativeCouncil
-
Borrow CSJ books from public libararies.Read below
How CSJ make a living?Still a lecture in Aussie?
He is widely reported in Aussie,
even a subject of Motion in
NSW Legislative Council Hansard--Motion agreed to.12.11.1998 by The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN
What is the motion?Did NSW Legislative Council interfere with Sg
internal affairs?Have MFA of Sg protested?
The [email protected]
Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN(Page 49) introduced the book To Be Free written by CSJ .
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN interfered Spore affairs by quoting The introduction written by Martin Lee, who is Chairman of Hong KongÂ’s Democratic Party.He(CSJ) has forsaken personal comfort and perhaps even physical and emotional security for his beliefs. The introduction was written by Martin Lee, who is Chairman of Hong KongÂ’s Democratic Party. He(Martin LEE) talks about the author and about the myth of Asian values.
This is not a private parties gossips.This is recorded in NSW Legislative Council Hansard---a legal document.MFA shall clarify her position on this MOTION.
He(MARTIN LEE) said: Dr. Chee Soon Juan has experienced first hand the perils of pushing for political reform in Singapore - a nation which has perfected the art of quashing dissent and punishing dissenters.
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of Singapore Democratic Party will most likely to be declared
bankruptcy today 10.02.2006.I guess from today ST report.
2.How to response to oppostion defamtory and irresponsible critices?
How Western leaders reponded?Shall PAP leaders follow blindly?
3.Forgive them and forget?Sending warning letter?
Lock them up without trial ?Cancel their passport once they left Spore?
No perfect answer.What is the best option?
This outcome fr trial will be noted by various international org and
governments and Sg will be labelled no democracy,no freedom
.....etc.in Review of 2006.
4.How the Western court give verdict of similiar cases?
5.
BRIEF BACKGROUNDIn 1999, Chee was imprisoned on two occasions for making public speeches without a permit. He was also prosecuted for selling his book, To Be Free, in public without a permit. No bookstore in Singapore would dare to sell the book.
I am not sure of this self ban.
But how come' PAP controlled'National Library Board allow CSJ 5 books put on shelf,published from 1994 yo 2005?
Except two in 1995 and 2005 avaiable in reference library not for loan,the remainders 3 are for loans in many libararies.
1.Chee, Soon Juan, 196
The power of courage : effecting political chang 2005
2 Chee, Soon Juan, 196
Your future, my faith, our freedom : a democrati 2001
3 Chee, Soon Juan, 196
To be free : stories from Asia's struggle agains 1998
4 Chee, Soon Juan, 196
Singapore my home too 1995
5 Chee, Soon Juan, 196
Dare to change : an alternative vision for Singa -
There's nothing wrong with global civil activism.
I highly respect Martin Lee.
-
THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
BANKRUPTCY PETITION HEARING page 12.BEFORE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR MS LOW SIEW LENG
IN REGISTRAR CHAMBER NO. 6 (2ND LEVEL)
ON 10/02/2006
Correct as at 09/02/2006 12:09 Page 12
Bankruptcy Order
S/N No. 1 B38/2006/ T
of Cases NOC/Subject Matter
Petitioner & Solicitor
GOH CHOK TONG,(DREW & NAPIER LLC)
LLC) - DS/HRK 198215
Debtor & Solicitor
CHEE SOON JUAN
KOH JUAT JONG
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT, SINGAPORE -
However, the environment in HK is different. Peaceful protest movements are allowed. No such thing is permitted in SG.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There's nothing wrong with global civil activism.
I highly respect Martin Lee. -
you got to keep in mind that it's all relative to one's perspective though ....Originally posted by LazerLordz:There's nothing wrong with global civil activism.
I highly respect Martin Lee.
to you and I, outsiders ... Martin Lee may seem like a lonely martyr ... to the Chinese and some hong kongers ... he's more than a political gadfly ... he's a traitor .... remember the long haired MP of hong kong ? .... some in the west think highly of him, newsweek did an article on him ... but go speak to hongkies about him ... they think he's more than a clown .... he's an embarrassment ... especially after his penchant for ang moh whores were splattered all over the tabloids .... national demarcations may be blurred in this global era ... but they still very much exist ...
(btw, I think this also means that general election is perhaps not far off now ....
) -
Is Mr LEE Kuan Yew- LKY , Minister Mentor,or Mentor Minister?
Most of u will get right---Minister Mentor.
But our learned CSJ got in wrong.Read '' Dr Chee criticizes system as he is declared bankrupt,10 Feb 06''May be CSJ always out stationed.seldom
watching TV,or listening to radio or reading paper.Otherwise,
how could he write Mentor Minister?
2.Also,he seems not aware the ranking in the Cabinet.
May be he wanted to imply Sg controlled by LEE family!!Chee Soon Juan
3.The official ranking
10 February 2006
cc
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mentor Minister
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister
Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister
Mr Yong Pung How, Chief Justice
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, President, Law Society
Mr J B Jeyaretnam
Mr Francis Seow
Mr Tang Liang Hong
Amnesty InternationalMr LEE Hsien Loong Prime Minister and Minister for Finance
4.Why he got so many foreigners involved?
Mr GOH Chok Tong, Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office
Mr LEE Kuan Yew , Minister Mentor, Prime Minister's Office
Prof S. JAYAKUMAR ,Deputy Prime Minister,
Mr WONG Kan Seng ,Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs
CSJ cc copy his ststement to
Mr Francis Seow
Mr Tang Liang Hong
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights First
Asia Human Rights Commission
International Commission of Jurists
LawyersÂ’ Rights Watch Canada
American Bar Association
New York City Bar Association
Indonesian Bar Association
India Bar Association
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
International Republican Institute (IRI)
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Kim Campbell, President (Club de Madrid)
Korea Democracy Foundation
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Forum Asia
Swedish International Liberal Centre
Olof Palme Centre
Jarl Hjalmarsson Foundation
World Movement for Democracy
Community for Democracies
George Soros Foundation
International Freedom for Exchange and
Expression
Southeast Asia Press Alliance
Reporters Without Borders
Freedom House
Political and Economical Consultancy
Transparency International
Non-violent International
John McCain, Chairman (IRI)
Madeleine Albright , Chairman (NDI)
David Kilgour, MP (Canada)
Raynell Andreychuk, Senator (Canada)
Graham Watson, MEP, Leader (ELDR)
Martin Lee, QC
Stuart Littlemore, QC
David Wingfield, Council for Enernorth
US Embassy
German Embassy
Swedish Embassy
Belgium Embassy
French Embassy
Netherlands Embassy
Canadian High Commission
Australian High Commission
New Zealand High Commission
British High Commission
European Commission -
i think the books will be removed....think when u go to library on Monday afternoon then no more liao
-
The books will always be there.
Look at it this way, at least CSJ speaks what is not spoken by many, although they know it inside their hearts.
Much as I feel that his tactics are not working, at least he is willing to do something he believes in. -
BravoOriginally posted by LazerLordz:The books will always be there.
Look at it this way, at least CSJ speaks what is not spoken by many, although they know it inside their hearts.
Much as I feel that his tactics are not working, at least he is willing to do something he believes in.
As much as he has been portrayed by the local 'government controlled' press to be a 'reject' - the least we can offer is some degree of support for his courage in the face of such strong opponents.
Five years - with good behavior - CSJ will no longer be a bankrupt....... unless the law is 'fixxed' again to prevent CSJ from ever threatening LHL in any open debate.
PAPa' boy still need to be 'mentored' - as seen by CSJ, so LKY is recognised by CSJ to be Mentor Minister - with the task of mentoring all ministers; instead of a more glorified Minister Mentor with more significant hint of the "Power BEHIND the Seat". .
-
fine ... I agree on that point ....Originally posted by LazerLordz:The books will always be there.
Look at it this way, at least CSJ speaks what is not spoken by many, although they know it inside their hearts.
Much as I feel that his tactics are not working, at least he is willing to do something he believes in.
but remember, it's Singaporeans he needs to convince, not, to draw from the CC list above: the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Indians, Taiwanese, etc .....
they don't vote or decide the fate and future of Singapore, Singaporeans do ! ....
what exactly is he trying to do ? ... trying to reduce Singapore's international space ? ... trying to convince foreign companies that Singapore is not a good place to invest in ? ... that way he's not hurting the goverment, but hurting ordinary Singaporeans ! think about it ! ... I don't question (some) of his points, but I am suspicious of his methods ... he doesn't seem to be working for Singapore, but rather, against it ...
he's little more than a political gadfly ... even if i don't vote for the PAP, my vote will never go to him ... I'd rather void my ballot ...
(come to think of it, he doesn't seem particularly interested in the voting process anyways ... i think he does more talking to foreigners than Singaporeans ... who exactly is he working for ? ... ) -
Francis's Seow's books are banned in Singapore.
But you can buy it in JB. -
Yep, I believe his style is more of trying to convince the international arena to boycott Singapore so that the PAP will be made to feel the pinch.However, the world does not work on pure black and white political theory.Originally posted by Fatum:fine ... I agree on that point ....
but remember, it's Singaporeans he needs to convince, not, to draw from the CC list above: the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Indians, Taiwanese, etc .....
they don't vote or decide the fate and future of Singapore, Singaporeans do ! ....
what exactly is he trying to do ? ... trying to reduce Singapore's international space ? ... trying to convince foreign companies that Singapore is not a good place to invest in ? ... that way he's not hurting the goverment, but hurting ordinary Singaporeans ! think about it ! ... I don't question (some) of his points, but I am suspicious of his methods ... he doesn't seem to be working for Singapore, but rather, against it ...
he's little more than a political gadfly ... even if i don't vote for the PAP, my vote will never go to him ... I'd rather void my ballot ...
(come to think of it, he doesn't seem particularly interested in the voting process anyways ... i think he does more talking to foreigners than Singaporeans ... who exactly is he working for ? ... )
Perhaps he figures that making us poorer off, will allow the citizens to wake up and express greater anger and indignation towards the ruling party and form a sort of catalyst to remove them from power?
That's the only logical explanation I can gather from it.But letting the international community know about our failings is a double-edged sword.There are more and more MNCs who are keyed towards political and social investment, and they might look twice.
Thing is, is it that impactful?CSJ should still try to reach out to the voters, because realistically speaking, it will still be us Singaporeans he has to convince, because the nation state is still here to stay for some time.If he stops shooting his mouth off so often, at least he can get into Parliament and have a Parliamentary Privilege to raise matters he would be previously unable to do so outside.
Remember the Select Committee on Healthcare?He raised very important questions about governance and audit of charity foundations a few years back.It was all dismissed as unfounded worries. -
Originally posted by Fatum:
Does one go "elephant hunting" alone ?
fine ... I agree on that point ....
but remember, it's Singaporeans he needs to convince, not, to draw from the CC list above: the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Indians, Taiwanese, etc .....
they don't vote or decide the fate and future of Singapore, Singaporeans do ! ....
what exactly is he trying to do ? ... trying to reduce Singapore's international space ? ... trying to convince foreign companies that Singapore is not a good place to invest in ? ... that way he's not hurting the goverment, but hurting ordinary Singaporeans ! think about it ! ... I don't question (some) of his points, but I am suspicious of his methods ... he doesn't seem to be working for Singapore, but rather, against it ...
he's little more than a political gadfly ... even if i don't vote for the PAP, my vote will never go to him ... I'd rather void my ballot ...
(come to think of it, he doesn't seem particularly interested in the voting process anyways ... i think he does more talking to foreigners than Singaporeans ... who exactly is he working for ? ... )
With the formidable powers of the Ruling Party, can any Opposition Party go it alone ?
CSJ's foreign adventure is to lift the 'wool' that has been pulled over the eyes of the World Community, to seek their morale support to 'convince' the Ruling Party to a more benevolent Political System then the Ruling Political Party is prepared to give.
The World Community has put pressure on Egypt's Mubarak, and got him to "open up" his tight fisted rule.
China was also subjected to the pressure of negative World opinion for her treatment of her citizens, and is 'SLOWLY' but 'SURELY' moving ahead to a more 'ENLIGHTENED' path.
South Korea and Philippines are two countries where dictators were subjected to foreign 'administrative pressures' to change their authoritarian style of rule - which finally collapsed due to the public anger with the exposure to the misuse and abuse of power.
If Singapore belongs to the World Community, the World must know the way Politics is played, and not simply look at the superficial glass and glitz of Singapore.
The manner in which the World's reaction and perception of what CSJ efforts overseas, will tell us alot of where Singapore stands in their agenda and their strategic value placed on Singapore.
Their inaction is probably due to the fact that this "Little Red Dot" is just what it is and has little significance and bearing to the global - or even regional - scheme of things.
Singapore's strategic value is only as good as it is able to keep itself afloat amidst an area of instability. It seems that it is not important if Singapore sink or float.
If Singapore is lost into turmoil, it is already in the midst of a troubled area and bear little consequence to the World Community.
If Singapore is lost in the style of 'Saddam's seizure of Kuwait' - it will outrage World's opinion, not because of its strategic value to the World Community, but for the simple fact that if any nation accept such an outcome, it will mean that they are opening their own country to invasion too.
Is CSJ correct in his hope to encircle the Ruling Party position, and force change in Singapore by way of outside pressue - when internal pressure from the Citizens is kept under a tight lid ?
Is he following Sun Tze strategem of winning the war without the bloody battle ? -
Singapore Judiciary Unfair And Not Independent
Received via email today..
Statement of Chee Soon Juan submitted to the High Court, Singapore at the Bankruptcy Petition Hearing on 10 February 2006
Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, was sued in 2002 by former Singapore prime ministers Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong for defamation. The courts awarded the case to the plaintiffs and ordered Dr Chee to pay $500,000 in damages. Messrs Lee and Goh then took legal action to declare Dr Chee bankrupt. In response Dr Chee submitted this statement at the bankruptcy hearing.
After much observation and having personally gone through the judicial process, I cannot but come to the conclusion that my case has not received the justice that it is entitled to; it has been crippled right from the beginning.
First, I was denied the services of QCs when the case commenced in 2002 because according to judge Tay Yong Kwang, the matter was not “complex enough”. This is in spite of the fact that I had made known the problem that few Singaporean lawyers would act for me because this involved politics. In this regard, it is instructive to note an AP report said criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, was happy to represent “thieves and even terror suspects – but no dissidents, please.”
The fact that the plaintiffs, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong, had engaged Senior Counsel, Mr Davinder Singh, who is seasoned in handling PAP defamation lawsuits and the fact that I had no lawyer to argue my case for me seemed to not bother the courts at all. The US-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights commented:
Neither at the hearing, on February 7 [2003], nor in the course of his judgment, did Justice Rubin display the least concern that Dr. Chee was unrepresented. The Lawyers Committee considers that this apparent lack of concern, coupled with the considerable latitude extended to Mr. Singh in his submissions to the Court, resulted in manifest unfairness in the course of the hearing and, specifically, the denial to Dr. Chee of a fair hearing that met the international norms to which we have referred.
Second, the case was awarded to the plaintiffs through Summary Judgment, which meant that I could not call witnesses and defend myself in open court. Again, the Lawyers Committee wrote:
The Lawyers Committee considers that there appear to be triable issues in this matter, such as whether or not the words spoken by Dr. Chee were defamatory and whether there was pressure brought to bear on Dr. Chee that should render his apology and admission void for duress.
In summary, not only did I not have legal representation but I also did not get a trial. It is well-known that Singapore has detention without trial. Now it seems that we also have defamation without trial.
To be sure my case is only the latest in several that have taken place through the years. Mr J B Jeyaretnam, one who has suffered the most under this legal tyranny, has had to endure much injustice. One case which he had appealed with Mr Wong Hong Toy to the Privy Council of London in 1988 will perhaps go down in judicial infamy. The Law Lords then had concluded that both the defendants had “suffered a grievous injustice” at the hands of the Singapore Judiciary and Law Society.
Another instance was the removal of former judge Mr Michael Khoo from the bench after he had passed a lenient sentence on Mr Jeyaretnam.
Through the years Mr Jeyaretnam has been hounded and was finally made bankrupt in 2001 which made him ineligible for the 2001 elections. He looks set to also be disqualified for this coming elections.
Then there was the case of Mr Tang Liang Hong who likewise was sued for defamation and made bankrupt in 1997. If ever there was any doubt as to the partiality of SingaporeÂ’s courts, this case and all its attendant proceedings removed it. It involved a police report that Mr Tang had made during the 1997 general elections about PAP leaders. Mr Lee Kuan Yew then got hold of the report, distributed it to the media, and then proceeded to sue Mr Tang for defamation. -
continue:
The above have been but a small sample of instances showing the lack of independence and fairness of our judicial system. This has prompted international organizations to comment:
“Civil defamation suits are being misused by the Executive to intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holding dissenting views.” – Amnesty International
“[Defamation lawsuits have] done little to overcome the courts’ reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country’s ruling People’s Action Party.” – International Commission of Jurists
“What emerges…is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. Singapore is not a country in which individual rights have significant meaning.” – New York City Bar Association
Our own former solicitor-general, Mr. Francis Seow said, “the judiciary…contort themselves into obscene positions to favour…the government.”
The US embassy in Singapore expressed concern over “the ruling party’s use of the court system to intimidate political opponents.”
Stuart Littlemore, QC, reporting for the International Commission of Jurists wrote: “The Singapore leadership has a long-standing record of using the high court as a mechanism for silencing its opponents – by suing them for statements that, in any comparable jurisdiction, would be seen as part of a robust political debate inseparable from democratic freedoms, and by being awarded such unconscionably high damages and costs as to bankrupt the defendants, forcing them out of parliament.”
More recently, Chief Justice Yong Pung How sued his former remisier, Mr Boon Suan Ban, for defamation when Mr Boon allegedly harassed Mr Yong over some financial matters. Mr Boon was subsequently arrested and remanded at the Institute for Mental Health at the “pleasure of the President.” The papers pertaining to the case were then sealed.
In 2005, High Court Judge Mr V K Rajah ruled that a silent protest staged by four activists calling for transparency and accountability from the Singapore Government was “incendiary” and that such protests would “improperly undermine both a hard-won national dignity and a reputable international identity.” This is in spite of the fact that the Singapore Constitution clear states that only five or more persons gathered in a public area constituted an illegal assembly.
The question of the independence of SingaporeÂ’s judiciary is also the subject of a dispute between two commercial companies that is taking place presently in Ontario, Canada. The arguments of one party can be found on: http://uy.http3.net/Corrupted_Singapore_Regime_Judiciary.pdf
Through the decades opposition politicians have been, and continue to be, hounded, persecuted, and prosecuted by the PAP through the courts. All this time no one in Singapore has dared to say anything. There comes a time, however, when one must look deep into oneself and ask how much more of the persecution one has to suffer in silence. Today I have made the decision not to remain silent any more and tell you what you donÂ’t want to hear: That the judiciary in Singapore is, sadly, not independent especially when it comes to dealing with opposition politicians.
I wish I didnÂ’t have to do this. I wish I could say that my countryÂ’s judicial system is independent and fair. But I canÂ’t because that would be a lie. It would be a much easier decision for me, and more importantly for my family, to walk away from this bankruptcy hearing and accept the punishment that the court has meted out. But my conscience dictates otherwise and I must take the path that in all likelihood will lead to dire consequences.
However, making this statement is a decision that I have chosen and, having made it, to accept the consequences that it brings. I hope to make this statement a start to a campaign to pry the countryÂ’s judiciary from the clutches of the PAP Government.
I may or may not succeed in my endeavour, but I would rather live my life having spoken and fought for the truth than to share it with cowardice and deceit. In my little way, I would have stood up for Singapore, my home too.
Chee Soon Juan
10 February 2006 -
Not worth it..
-
Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with.
Bob Wells
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969),
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 - 1965),
speech at the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
October 8, 1952
When we are angry or depressed in our creativity, we have misplaced our power. We have allowed someone else to determine our worth, and then we are angry at being undervalued.
Julia Cameron, The Vein of Gold
What you risk reveals what you value.
Jeanette Winterson
Courage is of no value unless accompanied by justice; yet if all men became just, there would be no need for courage.
Agesilaus the Second
In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.
J. William Fulbright (1905 - ) -
I don't think Chee juan juan is worth the shit.
-
Should it be strange if you come pretty close to your comparison of CSJ.Originally posted by Salman:I don't think Chee juan juan is worth the shit.
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself.
What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.
Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
Stephen Vizinczey
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Unknown -
A prominent Singapore opposition leader charged for court contemptMarch 1 2006 (Reuters).
In a court document seen by Reuters, the attorney-general said that Chee had acted in contempt of court during his bankruptcy petition on Feb. 10 when he refused to answer the court's questions and proceeded to read his statement.
Reuters seems pro opposition parties? -
No, the foreign press prefer to report both sides of the issues.Originally posted by lionnoisy:A prominent Singapore opposition leader charged for court contemptMarch 1 2006 (Reuters).
Reuters seems pro opposition parties?
As was so eloquently said by LKY : " The foreign press owes no allegiance to any one, and has no interests who the winners or losers are " - yet LKY and the Ruling Political Party seem so fearful that the Foreign Press should report on local politics.
Is it not ludicrous that merely reporting on local politics is tantamount to participating in local politics ?