Originally posted by [MG]FFX2:So according to you pro-democrats, Justice Belinda Ang was prejudiced in making her decision? Did you think that the High Court would have allowed prejudice to take place in a case between two public figures? I think not.
Either you have not been doing much research reading before thinking, or your thoughts are based on pure speculations.
Was the High Court not proven to be prejudiced in the case instituted by LKY against JBJ - for the matters concerning the accounts of the previous WP - and in which LKY had confidently stated that if JBJ could convince the Privy Council to overturn the High Court ruling, LKY will seek a personal pardon for JBJ ?
The Privy Council did find the High Court judgment to be woefully mistaken, and the judgment was wrong.
This resulted in LKY passing a Legislation - in a one party dominated parliament - to rescind the Privy Council from ever being the final course of appeal, claiming that the members of the Privy Council in UK is out of touch with the events in Singapore.
This is surprising considering that Singapore and UK follows the same ACCA accounting methods, how much more out-of-touch can the member of the Privy Council be with the events in Singapore ?
Or did LKY intend to mean that the Privy Council is out of touch with the events in Singapore needing the full co-operation of every Public Institution to support him in fixing the Opposition ?
Incidentally, the Privy Council did find JBJ free from any wrong doing, and had supported the findings of the Subordinate Court Judge Michael Khoo who had initially found JBJ to be also free from any wrong doing, but LKY insisted that JBJ was technically wrong, and had a High Court Judge Sinnathurai to review the case.
Unfortunately for the Subordinate Court Judge Michael Khoo, he was transferred from being a judge and to become a subordinate in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
LKY renegaded on his offer to seek pardon for JBJ if and when the Privy Council found the judgment against JBJ to be wrong.
This political set back to LKY also resulted in him rescinding his insistance on having the Privy Council to oversee the quality and standards of performance of the Singapore Judiciary.
Has the performance of the Singapore Judiciary been judged to be neutral and independent on matters related to political justice ?
Sure, MM Lee might have made a few speeches in the past which makes him look hypocritical, but you can only blame the leaders/parties of the past not to have sued him. And I'm glad they didn't.
Why should anyone blame the leaders / parties of the past for not suing LKY ?
Even LKY had admitted in his speech in the Malaysian Federal Parliament that ''whatever the faults of the Colonial System, and there are many....they generated the open mind, the enquiring minds''.
Obviously, the leaders / parties of the past were more tolerant and patient with LKY, as was seen in the political courtesy and space that was given to LKY during the short period when Singapore was foisted by LKY's scheme to join Malaysia.
Had Tunku Abdul Rahman been intolerant and less patient, he would have placed LKY in ISA detention for the many abrasive statements that LKY made during that period towards the Malay politicians, whom he had also coined the label ''ULTRAS'' on them.
It was LKY's unrelenting position in ''shooting from his hips'' in counter-attacking the provocations from these Malay Ultras - and Tunku'a inability to find any accomodation towards LKY's abrasive style - that finally got Singapore kicked out of Malaysia.
The reason for LKY's tears after the break-up was that Malaysia was his own creation - and the Tunku inherited it.
If you must ''polish the rotten apple'' - at least try to take a few moments to stand away to see your own works in total, and not be too smug in looking at the reflection of your own face in the small area that you have shined on the apple skin.