Amnesty International update on Chee Soon Juan
-
Amnesty International update on Chee Soon Juan
Amnesty International Canada
05 Sep 07
Prominent human rights defender and opposition leader Dr Chee Soon Juan has again been imprisoned. The imprisonment is the result of his attempt to
leave the country in April 2006 to attend a World Movement for Democracy
conference in Turkey.
The High Court dismissed his appeal 3 September against his conviction of attempting to leave Singapore as an undiuscharged bankrupt. Individuals who have been bankrupted are not allowed to travel abroad without official permission. His application was rejected two weeks after he was due to travel. He was fined S$4000 or three weeks in prison in default of payment. He has made some 12 applications to travel abroad to attend human rights and democracy meetings, all of which have been rejected.
He was last imprisoned for over two weeks in late 2006.
Dr Chee had been made bankrupt by the courts when he failed to pay former
prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong S$500,000 in a lawsuit they
had taken out against him in 2001.
Despite the loss of his university position, several terms of imprisonment,
bankruptcy and a ban on his contesting parliamentary election, Dr Chee
continues to speak out about human rights and democracy. In his most recent
article (28 August, www.singaporedemocrat.org), written knowing he faced
imprisonment, he called on Singaporeans to take action despite their fears,
and quoted Nelson Mandela: Courage is not the absence of fear but the
triumph over it. In the article, he points to punitive action taken against
dissidents, including peaceful anti-Iraq war protesters, Falun Gong
practitioners critical of the Chinese government, anti-death penalty
activists, Human Rights Day marchers, and the gay and lesbian community. In
recent months, he has tried to ensure that human rights concerns in
Singapore will be addressed in the October international conference of the
International Bar Association. He is planning an alternative conference with
high-level speakers prior to the IBA meeting.
Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern about civil
defamation suits, bankruptcies and criminal charges used or threatened
against government critics, human rights activists and foreign news media.
Dr Chee's sister, Chee Siok Chin, who is a prominent member of the small
opposition Singapore Democratic Party, was also recently made bankrupt by a
court - thus barring her from contesting a parliamentary seat (as she did
in the last election) or travelling abroad (where she has spoken at
high-level conferences). The Far Eastern Economic Review is the latest
foreign journal to be sued for defamation following its 2006 interview
article on Dr Chee. Laws permitting such restrictions maintain a climate of
political intimidation and self-censorship in Singapore. This climate
continues to stifle freedom of expression, deters the expression of views
alternative to those of the ruling People's Action Party and dissuades many
Singaporeans from exercising their right to take part in public affairs. The
Singapore government has stated that it is building an "open society".
TAKE ACTION:
Please write to Singapore's President
* Express your concern that government critics and human rights
defenders such as Dr Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin continue
to be penalised for the non-violent expression of their opinions;
* Ask the President to emphasize that progress depends not only on
economic advancement but also on respect for fundamental international human
rights standards, including the right to express one's opinions;
* State that you welcome the government's promise to build an "open
society" and that you look forward to the fulfillment of that promise. Ask
what steps are being taken to ensure respect for the basic right to freedom
of expression.
WRITE TO:
His Excellency President S R Nathan
Office of the President
Istana, Orchard Road
Singapore 0922
Fax: +65 6735 3135
E-mail: [email protected]
Salutation: Your Excellency
Please send copies to :
His Excellency Vanu Gopala Menon
Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations and High
Commissioner to Canada
231 East 51st Street
New York, NY 10022, USA
Fax: 1 (212) 826-2964
Salutation: Your Excellency
Please forward any responses to: Margaret John, Coordinator for Singapore
and Malaysia ([email protected])
FURTHER BACKGROUND:
AI has longstanding concerns about Singapore:
Freedom of expression is tightly controlled by the People's Action Party,
which has been in power over 40 years with almost no opposition MPs.
Political critics face ruinous defamation suits filed by leading government
figures and risk bankruptcy and imprisonment. AI describes this situation as
a "climate of fear".
AI believes that Singapore has the highest per capita rate of executions of
any country worldwide. Death sentences have been handed down after unfair
trials. For example, in drug trafficking cases, there is a presumption of
guilt and a mandatory death sentence.
International concern about human rights violations in Singapore is
mounting. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which met in
Singapore in 2006, criticised the authorities' exclusion of some of their
invited NGO representatives as well as the restrictions on peaceful
protests. In recent weeks, a visiting delegation of parliamentarians from
Europe and Asia protested when they were denied permission to speak at a
public forum. In the past few weeks, the international media have reported
criticism of large salary increases for the government while t he gap
between rich and poor is increasing. The Prime Minister's salary at over S$3
million (equivalent to the Canadian dollar) will be five times that of US
President Bush.
Dr. Chee is recognised internationally as a courageous human rights
defender. He received the prestigious Defender of Democracy Award by
Parliamentarians for Global Action in 2003 (Nelson Mandela is also a past
recipient). He states that imprisonment does not deter him and that he will
continue – referring to Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi – his
non-violent efforts to bring human rights and democracy to Singapore,
regardless of the consequences to himself. It was a message he repeated when he visited Canada in 2003.
http://singaporedemocrat.org/articlecheeWMDistanbul20.html -
Maybe we should write to Chee also and ask him to stop flouting the law
-
Well, that assembly law has no grounding in a democratic environment.Originally posted by kramnave:Maybe we should write to Chee also and ask him to stop flouting the law
But bearing in mind that his bankruptcy can be construed as politically motivated, this is a grey area to say if he should be treated as a criminal. -
So, is any big Hollywood stars making a Youtube Video for CSJ anytime soon
-
Has CSJ flouted the laws and convicted in a kangaroo court?
-
Material wise,we are almost reaching first world
But social and civil of government,we are no different from third world of poor africa countries -
Test water..bankrupt urself and try to in-out-in-out the country
-
But social and civil of government,we are no different from third world of poor africa countries
Sad isn't it?
-
Just because you take the minority position that disagrees with a law, it does not follow that you have the right to flout it. After all, the legislative body that promulgates laws and regulations has been freely elected by the population. In a democratic society, you are obliged to follow the rules of the majority, even if you disagree with it.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well, that assembly law has no grounding in a democratic environment.
But bearing in mind that his bankruptcy can be construed as politically motivated, this is a grey area to say if he should be treated as a criminal.
Unfortunately, those who talk about democracy do not act as law-abiding citizens in a democratic society and have therefore lost all credibility. -
If you choose to take my words out of their ideological construct and comment on them in a normative context, then too bad.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Just because you take the minority position that disagrees with a law, it does not follow that you have the right to flout it. After all, the legislative body that promulgates laws and regulations has been freely elected by the population. In a democratic society, you are obliged to follow the rules of the majority, even if you disagree with it.
Unfortunately, those who talk about democracy do not act as law-abiding citizens in a democratic society and have therefore lost all credibility.
Learn to appreciate the finer nuances of an argument, determine whether it is meant to be a idealised quote (which it clearly is) or whether it is meant to be a banal wank.
There is something to be said about disagreeing with the law, and yet NOT flout the law.
Gracias. -
Unfortunately, those who talk about democracy do not act as law-abiding citizens in a democratic society and have therefore lost all credibility.
Chee explains his concept here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8057768553173785296 -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
How would you know if it is the minority position that disagree with a law ?
Just because you take the minority position that disagrees with a law, it does not follow that you have the right to flout it. After all, the legislative body that promulgates laws and regulations has been freely elected by the population. In a democratic society, you are obliged to follow the rules of the majority, even if you disagree with it.
Has the Singapore Legislative body - that promulgates laws and regulations - been freely elected by the entire population ?
Can the rules that are forumulated by the Legislative Body be considered representative of the majority of Singaporeans - when there are more Singaporeans left out of the entire political process ?
The Ruling Party had managed to collect only 747,860 of the votes that gave them a winning percentage of 66.6%.
Considering that Singapore's population is supposed to be 4,484 million by mid-2006 - with PR determined to be 290,118 and Non-PR numbered 754,524 as taken from the Statistics available for 2006 - this leaves only 3,913,091 Singaporean Citizens from all age groups.
According to the available statistics for the 2006 Election - there were only 1,222,884 voting electorates that participated.
This number is only 27.27% of the Singaporean Citizens.
Even the King of Thailand had nullified the Thai Election 2006 when only about 30% of the population participated.
Yet, the brilliance of a PhD educated supporter of the MIW will not be discerning and to be more critical, but will be so gullible to falsely propagate and trumpet MIW propaganda.
Can the number of 747,860 votes that form 66.6% of the valid votes - won by the MIW - be representative of the 3,913,091 Singaporeans - [with non-Citizens taken out] ?
Even if we lopped off the number of voters that cast their votes for the MIW, there remain 3,165,231 Singaporeans - who had not given their votes but are disgusted and resentful towards the arrogance of the MIW.
Which majority is the MIW representing ? Is their victory claim nothing more then an ironical Pyrrhic Victory ?Continuation of Original Post by oxford mushroom:
Unfortunately, those who talked of democracy will use all means to tweek the Legislations to win an election for themselves, and neither have they acted as examplary law-abiding Political Leaders in their use of the Law to remove the Citizens' Rights to participate freely in Politics, and will use the full effects of the Law to terrrorise the Citizens into submission.
Unfortunately, those who talk about democracy do not act as law-abiding citizens in a democratic society and have therefore lost all credibility.
The following is an article on the conflicting count of Permanent Residents and Non-PRs in the Singapore Population.
A population snapshot
As at June 2006, there were 4.484 million inhabitants in Singapore, according to the official Statistics Department..
Of these, 0.8757 million (19.5%) were ''non-residents'' residing here. (Don't laugh at how they mangle the terminology)
These ''non-resident'' are those who are here on medium-term passes of a few years' duration. They include company executives based here, professors on contract, the families, students from abroad, and vast numbers of low-skilled workers and domestic maids.
3.6085 million are ''ingapore residents'' This term is used to mean 2 categories Citizens and Permanent Residents (PR) together.
The Statstics Departments no longer publishes data pertaining to citizens alone. If I recall correctly, they used to, as recently as 2 or 3 years ago.
But our curiosity insists on asking, what percentage of ''residents'' were citizens as at June 2006? The Department of Statistics website was no help at all, so I had to attempt an estimate by comparing data from the Elections Department with the demographic data in the the Statistics Department website.
The Elections Department said there were 2.1587 million voters for the May 2006 general election. To be eligible to vote in Singapore, one has to be at least 21 years old. The Stats Department said there were 2.6605 million "residents" who were 20 years old and above.
Thus, about 19% of adult ''residents'' were not eligible to vote; I would assume that the main reason would be because there were not citizens. Hence, by extension, we can estimate that about 19% of all ''residents'' reported in the Statistics Department website were PRs. This in turn translates to 15.2% of all inhabitants in Singapore.
Thus, this gives a breakdown of the 4.484 million inhabitants of Singapore: 65.3% citizens, 15.2% PRs, 19.5% ''non-residents''.
However, the Straits Times on 24 Feb 2007 gave slightly different percentage (but for 2005). See next box below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical data from the Straits Times' article of 24 Feb 2007.
1960: Singapore had 1.6 million inhabitants, of which 73% were born in Singapore and Malaysia and 27% born elsewhere.
1970: Singapore had 2.07 million inhabitants. 90.4% citizens, 6.7% PRs and 2.9% "non-residents''.
1990: Singapore had 3.05 million inhabitants. 86% citizens, 3.6% PRs and 10.3% "non-residents''
2005: Singapore had 4.3 million inhabitants. 71.5% citizens, 10.1% PRs and 18.3% "non-residents''.
The newspaper cited the Department of Statistics for the the number of inhabitants and the 2005 percentage breakdowns. For the percentage breakdowns of other years. it cited Migration and Social Diversity by Prof Brenda Yeoh, National University of Singapore, Department of Geography. -
Same old tune from the same old gas bag
When the Opposition parties cannot even convince their own supporters to stand for election in every constituency, do they now blame the government for having too many walk overs? In the few constituencies that they do contest, the ruling party wins two thirds of the votes, and yet Atobe fails to understand why that is a majority.
He should have paid more attention in primary six mathematics
-
...............
-
sooner or later, people know that it is simply a farce and there is no sincerity when they hold elections... people should try to use more than primary school logic even though it might be difficult for them to do so.
-
you've been mow over so many times over in practically every argument, why don't u just roll over and die already?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Same old tune from the same old gas bag
When the Opposition parties cannot even convince their own supporters to stand for election in every constituency, do they now blame the government for having too many walk overs? In the few constituencies that they do contest, the ruling party wins two thirds of the votes, and yet Atobe fails to understand why that is a majority.
He should have paid more attention in primary six mathematics -
Hey........why dun you form a party and contest in the next general elections?? With the kind of speech you're putting in here and the support you're getting, perhaps you may win a seat!! Would'nt the be great??Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:sooner or later, people know that it is simply a farce and there is no sincerity when they hold elections... people should try to use more than primary school logic even though it might be difficult for them to do so.
You may even do better than that sorry ass CSJ!!
Imagine..........AndrewPKYap.........elected member of Parliament!!! Wow!! I'll take my hat off!!
-
Hmm... the deframing lawsuit sounds something like the ex-CEO of NKF had been doing until he got owned...
-
It seemed during the NKF's trial, the word nepotism is not allowed to be said by the presiding judge.Originally posted by caleb_chiang:Hmm... the deframing lawsuit sounds something like the ex-CEO of NKF had been doing until he got owned... -
care so much for what.
-
Really?Originally posted by will4:It seemed during the NKF's trial, the word nepotism is not allowed to be said by the presiding judge.