Matters of Chee's
-
May 27, 2006
2.Chee Siok Chin takes legal action against PAP's electioneering
Chee's case to be heard in open court
THE High Court informed Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) Chee Siok Chin yesterday that her application to annul the General Election results would be heard in open court.
.
According to her lawyer, Mr M Ravi, the hearing has been set for June 27 and it will be open to the public, rather than being conducted in chambers, which is sometimes done as a matter of procedure.......
.
This is the first time that such a challenge has been mounted.
.
And according to Mr Ravi, Ms Chee had made a formal request for the court to hold an open hearing when it considered her application. — Loh Chee Kong,
WEEKEND TODAY
.
will u Support legal defence fund for Chee Siok Chin?
3.can CSJ give a lesson to ISD how to 'deal with' terorists suspects?
Buy them a big dinner at 5 stars hotel?
4.Detention without trial
At least 36 men remained in detention without charge or trial under the ISA.
This is common for western countries detention without trial after 9-11.
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
(CHAPTER 143),sect 11 (2) (a) be informed of his right to make representations to an advisory board under subsection (1);
Shall CSJ suggest all terrorists suspects be trial in open court? -
OMG, u compare CSJ to a terrorist?? Hmm, the ideas of CSJ are correct, but sadly, the way he expresses it is wrong ...
-
Banning podcasting and blogging
On 4 April 2006, the Straits Times reported: "New Internet technologies, such as podcasting and videocasting, cannot be used to disseminate political content during the General Election, the Government said yesterday. In the most extensive answer to date on online electioneering, Dr Balaji Sadasivan noted that streaming of 'explicit political content' by political parties or individuals is banned under election advertising rules set in 2001. He also had news for bloggers: They can discuss politics, but will have to register their sites if they consistently espouse a political line." The unconstitutional ban on podcasting had affected the campaign of the opposition and thus affecting the outcome of voting.
why litat..ban this ban that gg la -
However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us
quote from
that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.
bloody singapore ,
not a frienfly name!!
2.i cant find what the bloody claimed in PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, Cap. 218,sect 39A,49A
3.so CSJ is assisting defaming spore without proper checking?
can frens of CSJ here ask Dr Chee and post his reply here.
In quoting bloody essay in SDP site,CSJ is agreeing to the points.
He cant say oh i did not say this,i just quote. -
Where does Miss Chee get so much money to file a high court challenge? I have a feeling the court will eventually dismiss it with costs, which means she will probably have to get ready 100k to pay her legal costs.
-
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/51540
Overseas voting - Version PAP
Damaso G Magbual
May 25, 06 2:23pm
Malaysiakini
Overseas voting was introduced in April 2001 ‘to provide Singaporeans with strong links to Singapore to have their say through their votes’.
However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.
There definitely is merit in the observation of a student in Canada when he said that there is “…unequal rights to vote for all Singaporeans … who are not associated with any government or public agency” referring to himself and all Singaporeans who are similarly situated.
Voting is a basic human right and not a privilege, which the state grants to its citizens. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of suffrage as universal, it means all citizens of a given state, who are not reasonably restricted by law, have the right to vote. A primary concern of the right of suffrage is participation and international norms favour expanding rather than restricting this right.
Principle of non-discrimination
Hence, Singaporeans who have no direct or indirect affiliation with the government staying overseas and are not allowed to vote are arbitrarily denied a basic human right. This violates the principle of non-discrimination in the treatment of votersÂ’ eligibility, which is an essential characteristic of a free and fair election.
Some jurisdictions/democracies (India, Taiwan, Chile) do not grant their citizens residing outside the country voting rights. There are two basic reasons for this.
First, the setting up of systems and procedures on how the overseas citizens can vote on election day is in itself an administrative nightmare to the electoral body. Then there is the difficulty of designating the electoral district/constituency to which the votes will be assigned. Both reasons may not apply to Singapore. It is a known fact that the technological advance of Singapore is the envy of its Asian neighbours. Hence, setting up systems for overseas voting that will cover all Singaporeans should not pose any problem.
Secondly, the city/state has a limited number of districts/constituencies (23 SMCs and GRCs), unlike India, which is the biggest democracy in the world. Again, designating the district of an overseas voter should not present any problem given SingaporeÂ’s level of technological sophistication.
Some countries have certain restrictions on overseas voting but these restrictions are not on the right of citizens to vote. The restrictions are on their participation in a given election. France and the Philippines for instance, allow their overseas citizens to vote in some elections (national elections as against local elections) or for some positions (national versus local constituency). This avoids the difficulty of designating specific constituencies for the overseas votes.
Singapore restricts the rights of certain voters; the two examples cited restrict the type of election and the position to be voted upon. The former violates the basic principle of equality before the law and therefore discriminatory. The other two do not.
Discouraging support
The provisions of the Parliamentary Election Act that defines overseas voting is not only discriminatory to the overseas citizens but denies the political contestants who do not belong to the PeopleÂ’s Action Party a level playing field. Voting rights to overseas Singaporeans are limited to those with ties or affiliations with the government.
The PAP has been the dominant party - a virtual hegemony - since Singapore became independent. Those allowed to vote, since they are overseas by reason of their ties to the government are presumed if not expected to vote for the PAP. This certainly places the other parties at a distinct disadvantage.
The restriction on overseas voting to Singaporeans with ties to the government tends to confirm the perception that the PAP as the ruling party, has thrown at the opposition every possible obstacle to grow and develop as viable parties.
Too often changes in policies have almost always made it more difficult for opponents of the PAP to compete. The provision of block voting for the Group Representation Constituencies, the redrawing of political districts, and now the discriminatory provision of the overseas voting, all tend to confirm the impression that indeed the PAP has done everything to discourage support for the opposition.
The graduate student in Vancouver, Canada has a legitimate grievance in that the law is discriminatory. Hence, either the law allows all overseas citizens the right to vote or confine the right of suffrage only to citizens residing in the country. This is equality before the law!
DAMASAO G MAGBUAL is attached to the Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel). -
notice that after they got their 66.6 percent votes (which incidenly resembles the devils number), they went on to harp about how a large marjoity of singaporeans overseas voted for them.
sighs...
i really hope the trial changes some things. -
Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini by quoting 2 essays in SDP official site?
it is quoted in SDP siteOriginally posted by singabloodypore:http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/51540
Overseas voting - Version PAP
Damaso G Magbual
May 25, 06 2:23pm
Malaysiakini
DAMASAO G MAGBUAL is attached to the Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).
2.Guest workers or indentured labour? also quoted fr Malaysiakini.
Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini?
Foreigner workers are free to go back or work in other country.
Their lifes are hard here,for they dunt hv a PhD!!
Dunt blame Spore if they are not happy here.If their govt can
provide enough jobs in their home contry,.they will not be here.
There are some 600,000 low paid foreigner workers here.
I assume they hv average 4 persons to feed.We,a tiny
red dot,help to feed 3 million foreigners!!
It is damn easy to point figure,like Gomez.But how to
improve their lifes,CSJ?Dunt bring problems without solutions.
Increase their pay?Send them back?How?How? -
Malaysiakini provides ALTERNATIVE VIEWS that are contrary to the Government's Propaganda Machine in Malaysia.Originally posted by lionnoisy:Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini by quoting 2 essays in SDP official site?
it is quoted in SDP site
2.Guest workers or indentured labour? also quoted fr Malaysiakini.
Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini?
Foreigner workers are free to go back or work in other country.
Their lifes are hard here,for they dunt hv a PhD!!
Dunt blame Spore if they are not happy here.If their govt can
provide enough jobs in their home contry,.they will not be here.
There are some 600,000 low paid foreigner workers here.
I assume they hv average 4 persons to feed.We,a tiny
red dot,help to feed 3 million foreigners!!
It is damn easy to point figure,like Gomez.But how to
improve their lifes,CSJ?Dunt bring problems without solutions.
Increase their pay?Send them back?How?How?
What is the surprise that Malaysiakini has reported on issues that have been raised by ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PARTIES in Singapore, or that the Singapore Alternative Political Parties will share prints from Malaysiakini ?
Are you certain that all the 600,000 foreign workers are all low wage earners ?
Are you confusing yourself with the foreign workers who are domestic help with the daily crossing of 200,000 Malaysian workers that provide the critical labor in our shipyards and electronic manufacturing facilities, and those other foreign workers who are highly paid foreign talents ?
Are you certain that CSJ has no solution to the problems which he has identified and raised ?
It looks like you have not read some of the books written by CSJ, in which he has offered solutions to the problems created by the POWER OF ONE.
For starter, you may try reading :
" Dare to Change : An Alternative Vision for Singapore " - ( 1994 )
" Sinagapore, My Home Too " - ( 1995 )
"Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom" - (2001)
You will be surprised that after the 2001 Elections, the POWER OF ONE had implemented policies that surprisingly seem to be taken off " Dare to Change : An Alternative Vision for Singapore " that was written in 1994. -
chee and other charged again,
another free international media appearance.Without democracy we remain helpless when the PAP government passes laws without consulting the people.
2.when this day come,sg will finish.Some one jus simple .say
abolish all tax ,everything free,use our reserve,sell everythings under Temasek,
GIC.....and he will win. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.when this day come,sg will finish.Some one jus simple .say
abolish all tax ,everything free,use our reserve,sell everythings under Temasek,
GIC.....and he will win.
Regretably, I find your last statement intolerably condescending.
Do you take Singaporeans to be fools, or should we take you seriously at your last statement ?
Have you have been fed on foreign food for too long, and lost touch with local flavours, and have now looked at Singaporeans with such disdain, or have you a serious grudge against locals who cannot move out of their FORTY YEAR OLD 'Matrix' ?
Your last statement smacks of the contemptuous arrogance similar to that of the POWER OF ONE towards Singaporeans in general, and belittle our better sense of judgment for our own Future.
That statement belittle the intelligence and courage of the younger Singaporeans, who have dared to stand-up and be counted as Candidates with the Alternative Parties in the recent 2006 Elections.
During the recent 2006 Elections, did you hear anyone from the Alternative Parties making that last statement, which you and the Power of One have constantly brought up as part of the FEAR STRATEGY ?
If you are disillusioned, take a deep breath, and have faith that SIX YOUNG UNKNOWN CANDIDATES were able to rock the GRC foundation led by PM LHL, and shook his percentage despite the odds thrown against the SIX YOUNG HEROES from the Alternative Party.
This is only for starters - and the results were achieved without any of those wild promises that were alleged to be a hallmark of Alternative Parties to gain votes. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Atobe , not all of us overseas are like lionidiot. I don't like Chee for one thing- he craps in front of foreigners but I have hope for the other political parties like WP .
[b]chee and other charged again,
another free international media appearance.
2.when this day come,sg will finish.Some one jus simple .say
abolish all tax ,everything free,use our reserve,sell everythings under Temasek,
GIC.....and he will win.[/b]
No. one day someone will say
Taxes we need - but let's see what we can do to alleviate things on HDB flat costs, healthcare.
Open up the process of governance - Make the government more transparent
Those at the top in government owned companies who made incredible losses like in Suzhou industrial park will be made to pay it back and sacked.
Abolish the Minister's pay and let it be comparable to all developed countries plus bonuses if they can actually give singaporeans work and still maintain a surplus -
Chee is a fool. With all that PHDs, he can be wif PAPpys & be a top minister Get his pay in "peanut" currencies
& live a good life!
But choose to give all up to fight for some "rights" of SG ppl who probably dun give a damm & lead their selfish lives & continue voting the PA............ ahhhhh , wat the hell !!!!
-
Originally posted by innosaint:
Is CSJ a 'fool' ?
Chee is a fool. With all that PHDs, he can be wif PAPpys & be a top minister Get his pay in "peanut" currencies & live a good life!
But choose to give all up to fight for some "rights" of SG ppl who probably dun give a damm & lead their selfish lives & continue voting the PA............ ahhhhh , wat the hell !!!!
So what if you are a PhD in PAPpy's cabinet ?
Is there any guarantee that a PhD will get you a Ministerial post ?
Sadly, despite all his efforts, he remains an enigma in the Singapore Political Scene, very much maligned by the POWER OF ONE and Singaporeans, and taking the same path of confrontation as JBJ had.
At least, JBJ made an impact and knew how to play politics, but unfortunately, CSJ is like a virgin thrown into the wolves den. -
what abilities of 6 wise wo/men showed then people voted for them?
have people voted for them just because they are opposition?
here we hv freedom to vote for alternative parties.
2.
--means mr ravi do for free lah.
Mr M Ravi has dedicated himself to these cases and has-, as with previous cases, worked tirelessly and pro bono. He needs all the assistance he can get.
butORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 1017 OF 2006/W
1 We have been instructed to act for Ms Chee Siok Chin as Counsel in respect of the above matter.
2 Our client had filed the aforesaid application as litigant-in-person. Being a lay person, she was not conversant with legal procedure.
where is mr ravi?does he suppose to assist SDP to fight for justice?
now she missed the dead line and make international media has
somethings to write.
does mr rave really helping SDP or he only helped when
SDP made the news,again,and again. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
If you really want to know about the "ABILITIES of 6 wise wo/men" - try reading each of their profile :
what abilities of 6 wise wo/men showed then people voted for them?
have people voted for them just because they are opposition?
here we hv freedom to vote for alternative parties.
Abdul Salim Bin Harun Age 24
Gopal Krishnan Age 52
Han Su May Age 30
Lee Wai Leng Age 26
Tan Kian Hwee Melvin Age 30
Yaw Shin Leong Age 30
It is not so much their qualification, but their youthful honesty, and their guts to take on the braggarts who had it so good all the time, with the red carpets always rolled out for them.2.
At last - someone brave enough to offer some charity to the weak, the poor, and the downtrodden ?
Mr M Ravi has dedicated himself to these cases and has, as with previous cases, worked tirelessly and pro bono. He needs all the assistance he can get. --means mr ravi do for free lah.but ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 1017 OF 2006/W
If you did not know, all of the SDP Leadership had offered their apologies to both MM and PM - except for CSJ and his sister.
1 We have been instructed to act for Ms Chee Siok Chin as Counsel in respect of the above matter.
2 Our client had filed the aforesaid application as litigant-in-person. Being a lay person, she was not conversant with legal procedure.
where is mr ravi?does he suppose to assist SDP to fight for justice?
now she missed the dead line and make international media has
somethings to write.
does mr rave really helping SDP or he only helped when
SDP made the news,again,and again.
Is there any sense for SDP to put up any defence ?
If you must know, Mr Ravi had indicated his willingness to remains available to the SDP - supposedly whether they are in or out of the case. -
mr ravi should advised her in procedures.if so.she
would not missed the dead line.
why she missed dead line?tell me.
if mr ravi has been assisting chee's sibling,why both of them always
done the wrong thing or at the wrong time?:
example 1:Ms Chee had not known that she was required to pay a deposit of $5,000 within three days of filing the OS-- Originating Summons .
why ravi not told her that she need to pay deposit?
example 2:Lawyers say party leader Chee Soon Juan had written to the High Court last Friday asking for an adjournment for this case.
But the assistant registrar had urged Dr Chee to write to the lawyers or come to court on Wednesday(7 june 2006).
Dr Chee did neither.
....The High Court ruled in favour of the two leaders after the SDP failed to file a defence for defamatory remarks made in the January edition of its newspaper.
why mr ravi did not request for adjourment of hearing ?
the layman csj then wrote to court instead of lee's lawyer.
In the latter case,CSJ would tell western ferns that PAP
ruled the case without hearing his representations.
but he choose not appear in Court.Was there any 'accident'
made him cant appear in court?
3.pl fight in a clean manner,csj.dunt use the excuse that i
dunt like the system then i dunt follow the rules!!
follow the rules of the game and u can play longer.
read how LKY played with British colony government
when he represented labour unions in 1950's.
he as a lawyer was in a better position than u lah.
but u hv mr ravi,the humand rights lawyer,and
platoon of western advisers,incl some QC, to help u.
if LKY did not play by the rules of the game,he would
enjoy the scenery in Mount Pleasant lah.
LKY's Memory may sit side by side with your good few your books
in national library -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Lionnoisy,
mr ravi should advised her in procedures.if so.she
would not missed the dead line.
why she missed dead line?tell me.
if mr ravi has been assisting chee's sibling,why both of them always
done the wrong thing or at the wrong time?:
example 1:[b]
why mr ravi did not request for adjourment of hearing ?
the layman csj then wrote to court instead of lee's lawyer.
In the latter case,CSJ would tell western ferns that PAP
ruled the case without hearing his representations.
but he choose not appear in Court.Was there any 'accident'
made him cant appear in court?
3.pl fight in a clean manner,csj.dunt use the excuse that i
dunt like the system then i dunt follow the rules!!
follow the rules of the game and u can play longer.
read how LKY played with British colony government
when he represented labour unions in 1950's.
he as a lawyer was in a better position than u lah.
but u hv mr ravi,the humand rights lawyer,and
platoon of western advisers,incl some QC, to help u.
if LKY did not play by the rules of the game,he would
enjoy the scenery in Mount Pleasant lah.
LKY's Memory may sit side by side with your good few your books
in national library
[/b]
As much as I don't like CSJ (and prefer WP), I don't really like your attitude either. You sound - pardon me for being rude, which I usually aren't - like a bloody foghorn sounding at night. Firstly, recently, there have been quite a no. of complaints of how the legal system is biased toward the prosecutor, in this cas the Father and the Son. I don't doubt Ravi would have asked for an adjournment, it's juz tt the ST didn't report THAT fact; ST never tells the complete truth on local affairs. And if he didn't, it's probably because he wasn't informed of teh date until the eleventh hour. SO you can't really blame the poor lawyer.
And regarding PAP, LKY fought in a clean manner? Oh, pls give a break. Stop reading those triumphalist local histories, including the Great Man's memoirs, and search for sth a little more objective, such as the DIscovery Channel documentary. LKY ditched his supporters - the Commies - when it suited him to do so. He had manipulated them to win support of the Chinese-ed people, then he threw them out when he decided to throw his cushions in with the Brits, whom our school history syllabi have enjoyed derogating for years. CSJ follows the rules, no matter how sparingly; it's the PAP-established system that violates the Constitution.
Lol, Mr Lionniosy, you are really becoming headache in this forum. You are so lucky that people here are much milder (except ATOBE) than those in Sintercom, which I remember you were there. You aren't going to find much support for your fanatic pro-PAP views here, man. SGForums is not YP BBs. I would advise you, please moderate your sentiment, and engage in more fruitful discussion.
Cheers,
the (dissappointed) pikamaster -
2.how u know its 11th hour?who told him at 11th hour?Originally posted by pikamaster:Lionnoisy,
...... And if he(lawyer Mr Ravi of SDP) didn't, it's probably because he wasn't informed of teh date until the eleventh hour. SO you can't really blame the poor lawyer.
And regarding PAP, LKY fought in a clean manner? Oh, pls give a break. ..........
Cheers,
the (dissappointed) pikamaster
CSJ or AG or the Court?If RAVI represented CSJ,ravi should handle
dealing with Court,not CSJ----as ravi said,a layman lah.
3.LKY fought smart with British---played by the rules.
i dunt think he would miss any dead line for submission
or filing appeal of cases,or accused small civil servant wrongly.
i means he fought clean with British.If he fought clean with
opposition is another issue.
read how ex-President of Sg C.V. Devan Nair wrote in 1994:Indeed, my fellow detainees and I had as legal counsel a brilliant lawyer and vocal freedom-fighter by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, who has publicly borne witness to the comfortable circumstances in which we lived under detention, and how he was able to visit us, without supervision, to discuss, among other things, strategies for bringing the colonial rule of our jailers to an end.
4.
After the statutory period of 21 days' solitary confinement, my fellow detainees and I were allowed to live together in camp conditions, whether in Changi or, even better, on salubrious St. John's Island. Our lawyer, Lee Kuan Yew, was freely allowed to visit and talk to us, without Special Branch supervision, and to plan with us the downfall of the British colonial power. So free were we as political detainees to pursue our own interests and studies that we light-heartedly referred to our places of detention as "St. John's" University and "Changi" University.Lee was central to this combination, since his work representing unions and radical students had provided a bridge. This work had rapidly increased in 1954 to 1955. This work included helping:
5.u think Special Branch or the Government then dunt want LKY
· leftwing (see below) students who had been arrested in May 1954 because of their protest against National Service
· University of Malaya socialists accused of publishing ‘seditious’ Fajar article, and
· legal advice for leftwing unions such as the Singapore Bus Workers Union.
disappear or caught him making mistakes?or course they wanted.
all communist or their supporter,incl LKY,must be kept under
control.
LKY,unlike mr Ravi,fought for his clients carefully.what
would happened to LKY if SP knew his activities,plotted to
overthrow the government?LKY just settle in Mount Pleasant
for good if he get caught.No joke.
Unlike Mr Ravi in 2006,just write a letter to AG,cc media,if he made
a mistake.
u think ur grand/parents voted for pap for no reasons or
just voted for oppositions?
LKY and his commrades hv done many things.read more
lah.
yes,i am pro pap.i just support party which have done good
for sg or the party show it will do good for sg.
u can call me running dog of pap etc.
but i and my kids just hope to be running dogs of
stable lifes. -
Don't bite the hand that rocks the cradle eh?Originally posted by lionnoisy:5.u think Special Branch or the Government then dunt want LKY
disappear or caught him making mistakes?or course they wanted.
all communist or their supporter,incl LKY,must be kept under
control.
LKY,unlike mr Ravi,fought for his clients carefully.what
would happened to LKY if SP knew his activities,plotted to
overthrow the government?LKY just settle in Mount Pleasant
for good if he get caught.No joke.
Unlike Mr Ravi in 2006,just write a letter to AG,cc media,if he made
a mistake.
u think ur grand/parents voted for pap for no reasons or
just voted for oppositions?
LKY and his commrades hv done many things.read more
lah.
yes,i am pro pap.i just support party which have done good
for sg or the party show it will do good for sg.
u can call me running dog of pap etc.
but i and my kids just hope to be running dogs of
stable lifes.
For starters, it would be foolish to rely on Straits Times as the sole source of your information; the elections has proven their pictures and articles GROSSLY unreliable. Other political bloggers such as Alex Au (with his photo stories at Yawning Bread) have shown that the loca press deliberately OMIT vital statements made by the aggrieved parties, instead painting the ruling party in excellent light.
If you truly wish to be the judge of character, attend the court hearings, witness the proceedings yourself, then be your own judge.
That being said, the Chee siblings were always fighting a losing battle. Despite their valient (perhaps at times naive) efforts, no SG court would ever endorse their case, so the proceedings itself were a mere formality.
Much of the law and the constitution has been commuted to meet the needs of the Ruling Party. What they cannot convince in parliament or in referendums, they legislate. The outcome is always the same.
Fighting a case against the govt is worse than little David against THE GOLIATH. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Originally posted by pikamaster:
If you refer to Friday's Straits Times at the bottom of Page H15-Home you will perhaps read of the tricks employed between the AG Chambers and the Election Department - perhaps done to trip up the challenge that Ms Chee have submitted for the High Court to decide, and which will have to be embarrisingly dealt with ?
Lionnoisy,
...... And if he(lawyer Mr Ravi of SDP) didn't, it's probably because he wasn't informed of teh date until the eleventh hour. SO you can't really blame the poor lawyer.
And regarding PAP, LKY fought in a clean manner? Oh, pls give a break. ..........
Cheers,
the (dissappointed) pikamaster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.how u know its 11th hour?who told him at 11th hour?
CSJ or AG or the Court?If RAVI represented CSJ,ravi should handle
dealing with Court,not CSJ----as ravi said,a layman lah.Straits Time - 9 June 2006, Friday - Page H15-Home
So much gerrymandering has occurred in Singapore Politics, do we expect any much less to continue as politics get dragged into the Courts ?
SINGAPORE Democratic Party member Chee Siok Chin wants the High Court to dismiss the Attorney-General's application to strike out an earlier application she made to have the May 6 election results declared null and void.
The A-G said her May 23 applications was faulty as she failed to also place a $5000 security deposit with the Elections Department within three days as required under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
While Ms Chee should have give her deposit within three days of May 23, she said yesterday that she did try to do so on June 5.
But she said Elections Department Lee Seng Lup refused to accept the deposit: "His refusal to accept the secuity deposit was unreasonable particularly since he was willing to accept at first."
She said the refusal also contradicted the A-G's application which was based on the fact that I had not paid the deposit".
Her lawyer M.Ravi wrote to the Department on Tuesday to say the refusal was "regretful as I had initiated the present action because it is of public interest".
Ms Chee asked the Court to allow her application to stand. The court previously agreed to hear her application on June 27. But whether it will still proceed could hinge on the outcome of the June 12 hearing into the A-G's application to strike it out.
SUE-ANN CHIA
Was Ms Chee also not speaking the truth - that the Election Department Official had agreed to accept her security deposit ?
Why did the Election Department Official decide to change his position and reject the deposit ?
Why has the Straits Times not clarify this issue with further investigative reporting ? -
continuation:
To be fair to Mr Devan Nair, perhaps you could also have quoted the following :
3.LKY fought smart with British---played by the rules.
i dunt think he would miss any dead line for submission
or filing appeal of cases,or accused small civil servant wrongly.
i means he fought clean with British.If he fought clean with
opposition is another issue.
read how ex-President of Sg C.V. Devan Nair wrote in 1994:
quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Indeed, my fellow detainees and I had as legal counsel a brilliant lawyer and vocal freedom-fighter by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, who has publicly borne witness to the comfortable circumstances in which we lived under detention, and how he was able to visit us, without supervision, to discuss, among other things, strategies for bringing the colonial rule of our jailers to an end.
After the statutory period of 21 days' solitary confinement, my fellow detainees and I were allowed to live together in camp conditions, whether in Changi or, even better, on salubrious St. John's Island. Our lawyer, Lee Kuan Yew, was freely allowed to visit and talk to us, without Special Branch supervision, and to plan with us the downfall of the British colonial power. So free were we as political detainees to pursue our own interests and studies that we light-heartedly referred to our places of detention as "St. John's" University and "Changi" University.
4. Lee was central to this combination, since his work representing unions and radical students had provided a bridge. This work had rapidly increased in 1954 to 1955. This work included helping:
· leftwing (see below) students who had been arrested in May 1954 because of their protest against National Service
· University of Malaya socialists accused of publishing ‘seditious’ Fajar article, and
· legal advice for leftwing unions such as the Singapore Bus Workers Union.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.u think Special Branch or the Government then dunt want LKY
disappear or caught him making mistakes?or course they wanted.
all communist or their supporter,incl LKY,must be kept under
control.
LKY,unlike mr Ravi,fought for his clients carefully.what
would happened to LKY if SP knew his activities,plotted to
overthrow the government?LKY just settle in Mount Pleasant
for good if he get caught.No joke.
Unlike Mr Ravi in 2006,just write a letter to AG,cc media,if he made
a mistake.
MM LKY seems to have a colorful history of working with partners and dumping them after they are no longer of any use.
Former President criticise suppression of dissent
But as Singapore grew prosperous and stable and the communist threat faded, Mr Nair began to have doubts about his captain's iron-fisted methods. Perhaps sensing his ally's doubts, Mr Lee asked Mr Nair to leave his power base as head of the trade union congress and move into the presidential palace. As Mr Nair puts it, "He kicked me upstairs."
Being president, he says now, was "the silliest job in the world. All you had to do was cut ribbons." His frustration grew.
But before he could speak out, Mr Nair found himself at the centre of a rumour-mongering campaign that labelled him a drinker and womanizer. He says he was neither, and he suspects that Mr Lee had government doctors slip him hallucinatory drugs to make him appear befuddled. "Lee Kuan Yew decided: This man is going to be a threat, so I'd better begin a total demolishment of his character. He's very good at that."
Why didn't Mr Nair challenge his leader at the time? That question has haunted him ever since. "I was prone to hero worship and he was our captain," he says, lowering his head. "Even when I began to feel uneasy, loyalty to the captain superseded all other feelings. That was my weakness."
Mr Nair is not bitter. He gives Mr Lee credit for making Singapore a wealthy, stable place, an accomplishment in which he is proud to have shared.
But how much greater that accomplishment would be if Singapore were a wealthy stable democracy. To him, Singapore today is a soulless place whose only ideology is materialism. Whether he could have changed that, Mr Nair wishes now he had spoken up earlier
Where could LKY picked up such ruthless leadership ideology, other then his admitted admiration while working as an interpreter for the Japanese Imperial Army during WW-2 ? Is it amazing to learn of the common thread that bind LKY so closely to a trusted SR Nathan - who performed so well in the ISD ?
With the British, LKY was working with the Left Wing PAP members to gain the support of the larger Chinese educated population, while at the same time plotting with the British Special Branch to have these men arrested.
Do we need younger Singaporeans like Ravi to learn from such a Mentor ?
Yes, LKY and his comrades - Devan Nair included - have certainly done many things; and here is an admission of two who have served as LKY's faithful Servants, before finding themselves at the other ends of the ropes held by LKY.
u think ur grand/parents voted for pap for no reasons or
just voted for oppositions?
LKY and his commrades hv done many things.read more
lah.
yes,i am pro pap.i just support party which have done good
for sg or the party show it will do good for sg.
u can call me running dog of pap etc.
but i and my kids just hope to be running dogs of
stable lifes.
Is the Singapore Way so unique and a creation of MM LKY's thinking, or is a left-over from the Colonial Past, which we are supposed to have freed ourselves from since Independence ? Could we have gone to a higher level of political, social and economic development - if we allowed ourselves the opportunity to Freedom ?
Back in 1979, others in the International Community - whom we had proudly identified ourselves with - have seen the shortcomings of the POWER OF ONE, and have decided to expel us. In the usual calculated way, in order to pre-empt local public discussion, the situation was cleverly turn around to make ourselves look better then the real outcome.
Singaporeans were told a convenient 'white lie', and the lie continues.
Dogs are supposed to be intelligent animals, well trained, and can even attend to the needs of the handicapped.
What use are a pack of dogs that run aimlessly at useless commands to entertain the Master's Voice ? -
Chee met PM Clark of NZ,then a opposition leader
Dear Prime Minister Clark,
----CSJ
If you recall, we had met at your request at the New Zealand High Commission several years ago when you visited Singapore as Opposition Leader.
was it a interference of Sg domestic issue?
Dr Chee,hv u betray Clark in revealing this meeting? -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
The only one who betrayed Singapore is the authority in power that control the type of information that Singaporeans are allowed to consume.
Chee met PM Clark of NZ,then a opposition leader
[b]----CSJ
was it a interference of Sg domestic issue?
Dr Chee,hv u betray Clark in revealing this meeting?[/b]
Do you think the POWER OF ONE is not aware of the "co-incidental "appearance at the NZ Embassy when the NZ Opposition Leader was there at the same time ?
Even PM LHL called on the leader of the Oppostion during his recent visit to Australia, and it has also been the habit of MM LKY and SM GCT to call on the leader of the opposition when they visit those countries that practices democratic politics.
Are our political leaders not interfering in the domestic political agenda of other countries ?
Have those foreign opposition leaders betrayed their respective countries by meeting with our "hypocritical" leaders - who will not tolerate our own opposition but will rub themselves with foreign opposition politicians ? -
SDP's Chee slapped with 8 charges of speaking in public without licence
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsiaThree members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have been charged with speaking in public without a licence - which is an offence under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.
State Department of US ,AI,and other org should tx for Chee etc.
SDP's Secretary General Chee Soon Juan was slapped with eight charges for speaking in public without a licence on different occasions between 13 November last year and 22 April this year.
Also facing the similar eight charges as Dr Chee is SDP member Yap Keng Ho.
Another SDP member Gandhi Ambalam had one charge levelled against him, for speaking without a licence in a public place on 22 April this year in the Yishun area.
Their cases will be heard again during a pre-trial conference on 29 June 2006. - CNA/ir
If not.then at end of year they hv less material to write for Spore
report.But i found their reports more or less the same
every year.
3.Chee once critixed Spore not allowes HK and UK's QC to fight
for his cases.Pl take note that even democratic and freedom MY
do not allow UK PM's wife fight in MY court.
i read some where she was lead fr lawyers seats? to publice gallery.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court on June 7 2006 ruled that her services were not necessary and that local lawyers were capable of handling the case.
Spore courts already told Chee this similiar reasons lah.Has Chee promised to pay lawyer to fight for his case?Or he asked for free services therefore
no lawyer'dare' to fight ?There is big differences here.