CSJ tell u the truths--the half truths
-
Opposition Party leaders need not darken the name of Ruling Party
and her own country to enhance his or her position.
Unforuntately,CSJ just do this,frequently.
He usually tell u the truth,the half truths.
CSJ too shy to admit ST published his letter for AWARD to LKY fr TI,Malaysia
1.He said STimes is PAP mouth piece.Yet he wrote to the forum.
STimes gave him much space to air his view on Transparency International,
Malaysia award to LKY.He dared not tell u in SDP site.
Court waived security deposit of $10,000 for appeal
In the recent contempt of court case,court waived the deposit.
Court just needed them to pay $2000 filing fee for each case.
Again,he did not tell u.
He cheated IBA that FEER was banned here
It is not true.
He said Canada court cast doubts on the integrity of Singapore courts.
He cheated IBA the above .But he just told u the Part 1,but not Part 2,3 till the End...
I dunt have the pages he distributed to IBA memebers.
I think he just tell the members the so called experts edvidence from the following:
Judges of Appeal of
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
LASKIN, MACFARLAND AND LAFORME JJ.Ahttp://www.enernorth.com/fin_reports/Ont_Decision_06092006.pdf
[23] The application judge carefully reviewed the evidence relied on by
Enernorth in support of its bias argument. He considered the exchange between a
witness and the Singapore trial judge concerning the correct spelling of the Koh
Brothers Group’s name, and the fact they now controlled Oakwell. He concluded
that this evidence was insufficient to prove bias or corruption. He considered the
evidence of the expert witnesses – Ross Worthington, Nihal Jayawickrama and
Francis T. Seow – and concluded that their evidence was either unreliable (as in
the case of Mr. Worthington) or too general to prove that there was not a fair trial
in this case. He concluded there was a lack of evidence of corruption or bias in
private commercial cases and no cogent evidence of bias in this specific case.u can read more
http://www.enernorth.com/litigation.html
i also mentioned this case
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/319185?page=9
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
-
Eh lionnoisy, how come you never tell us why you created the other half of yourself, makepeace?
Is your behaviour in here also not the half-truths?
LOL!
-
Is this a surprise that the published judgment of the lost case in a Canadian Court was never made known to Singaporeans ?
“LKY loses motion in Canadian Court”.
20 August 2002Case Name: Yew v. Globe and Mail
Between
Lee Kuan Yew, Plaintiff,and
The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Margaret Wente, Marcus Gee, Devan Nair, Defendants
[2002] O.J. No. 16
Court File No. 99-CV-171574Ontario Superior Court of Justice Greer J.
Heard: November 28, 2001.
Judgment: January 7, 2002.
(20 paras.)Counsel: Julian Porter, Q.C. and Odette S. Soriano, for the Plaintiff.
Sean Dewart, for the Defendant.1 GREER J.: The Plaintiff, Lee Kuan Yew ("Lee") is the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore and is now Senior Minister of Singapore. He took offence at the content of an article entitled "Singapore Sage", which appeared on March 29, 1999, in the Globe & Mail. The article was written by Marcus Gee about Singapore, the government of Lee and included an interview with the Defendant, Devan Nair ("Nair"), a former President of Singapore from October 1981 to March of 1985. Nair is now a resident of Hamilton, Ontario. Nair had once been the head of Singapore's most powerful trade union association, and he believes that he had been perceived by Lee as being a potential political threat. By Statement of Claim dated June 19, 1999, Lee sued the above-named Defendants, saying that he has suffered damage and "been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt", by reason of the libel he says is contained in the article.
2 Nair, in his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated July 6, 2001, by way of Counterclaim, claims damages for the tort of abuse of process. The abuse is said to include, but is not limited to loss of income, out-of-pocket expenses, unrecoverable costs, and mental anguish, distress and anxiety associated with defending the litigation financed on Lee's behalf with the essentially unlimited resources of the Government of the Republic of Singapore. Nair says this could prove to be financially ruinous to him.
3 Lee moves for an Order striking out the Counterclaim in its entirety on the grounds that the Counterclaim for the tort of abuse of process, on its face, fails to plead the necessary elements of the tort. He says that the Counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action and that it is scandalous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the Court. Finally he says that it constitutes, includes or directs an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the Government of Singapore, which is not a party to this action.
Some of the background
4 The article notes that Nair left Singapore in approximately 1988, and did not return, after "publicly quarrelling with Mr. Lee over the arrest of a well-known government critic. Then he dropped from sight." It sets out the earlier history between the two men, when they both fought together to prevent an attempted takeover of Singapore by the Communists and helped build their country to an "economic dynamo bristling with skyscrapers." It also sets out some of the problems Nair experienced when he and Lee began disagreeing about how Lee was governing Singapore and how Nair found himself the centre of a "rumour-mongering campaign that labelled him a drinker and a womanizer." Nair says that he was neither. The article says that Nair suspects that Lee had government doctors slip him hallucinatory drugs to make him appear befuddled in order to "begin a total demolishment of his character. He's very good at that." The article then says that "Singapore doesn't lock up its critics any more; it sues them, instead", noting that a critic of the government, Mr. Jeyarethnam has faced countless libel suits from Mr. Lee and other members of his government.
5 Nair's Factum sets out, in some detail, more of what Nair says Lee did to remove him as a political threat. This includes a white paper tabled in the parliament of Singapore before Nair left, because of Nair's public statements in opposition to what the government was doing to oppress a leading dissident in Singapore. Further, it is Nair's position that this action was commenced by Lee for the collateral and improper purpose of silencing his critics, including but not limited to Nair. In Singapore, this is done, says Nair by fostering a climate of fear and intimidation among residents.
6 It is Nair's position in paragraph 16 of his Factum that: Mr. Lee is indifferent to his reputation among the readership of the Globe & Mail, but has an established and well publicized record within the Republic of Singapore for suing his critics for defamation, and using other measures which are contrary to established international rights in respect of freedom of expression, with a view to silencing his critics.
7 It is within the framework of this background that the action was brought on, and that the Counterclaim of Nair is structured. Lee asks the Court to strike the whole Counterclaim.
The issues
8 Lee says that the issue to be determined by the Court is whether it is plain and obvious that the Counterclaim cannot succeed because the pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action in that Nair has failed to plead the necessary elements of the tort of abuse of process.
9 Nair says that the issues are what is the test on a motion to strike a Counterclaim as not disclosing a cause of action; and does the Counterclaim set out the two constituent elements of the tort of abuse of process namely, that in prosecuting the action, Mr. Lee is using the process of this court for a collateral and improper purpose; and, that Mr. Lee has made an overt and definite act or threat, separate and distinct from the proceedings themselves in furtherance of this improper purpose.
Test on the Motion
10 Lee moves under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out the Counterclaim on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence. He says that the libel is a precise, narrow libel, and claims that Nair has invented false allegations in his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.
11 The court may also, under rule 25.11, strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading on the ground that the pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or that it is an abuse of the process of the court.
12 The test for determining whether a pleading should be struck is set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321. Assuming that the facts as stated in the Counterclaim can be proven, the Court said in Hunt, supra, one must look to see if it is "plain and obvious" that the Counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Court also notes that if there is a chance that the plaintiff might succeed, then the plaintiff should not be "driven from the judgment seat." In Nash v. Ontario (1995), 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal, at p. 6 says:
On a motion to strike out a pleading, the court must accept the facts alleged in the statement of claim as proven unless they are patently ridiculous or incapable of proof, and must read the statement of claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies.
Nor, should the Court dispose of matters of law that are not fully settled.
13 The Court of Appeal in Prete v. Ontario (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 161, [1993] O.J. No. 2794, Action No. C9963 at p. 9 of the Quicklaw version, examines both the tests under rule 21.01(1) and rule 25.11. In that case, the Court was split on the issue of whether the Court can look beyond the pleadings and determine if the action has a chance of success. The majority found that it could not because if you consider the statement of claim to be an abuse of the process of the court, it can only be because it discloses no reasonable cause of action. Weiler J.A, in dissent, found that the Court could look beyond the pleading. Even if one cannot look beyond the pleading, the pleading must be examined to see if it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise constituting an abuse of the court's process.
The Tort of Abuse of Process
14 The two elements of the tort of abuse of process, both of which must be pleaded, are whether the plaintiff, in bringing the action, is using the court process for a collateral and improper purpose; and whether he or she has made an overt and definite act or threat, separate and distinct from the proceedings themselves, in furtherance of the improper purpose. See: Tsiopoulos v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 117 (Gen. Div.) at pp. 119 and 120, where the Court notes that the process is very narrow in scope. Further, the Court has noted that the alleged collateral and improper purpose cannot be related to a direct or indirect purpose or to an intended or unintended purpose such as intimidation or the fact that it would impoverish the defendant. See also: Dooley v. C.N. Weber Ltd. (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 779 (Gen. Div.).
15 The Courts have consistently held that the intention to silence through a defamation action is not a collateral or improper purpose, as this is a result, which naturally flows from the litigation itself and is a legitimate purpose. See: Pizza Pizza Limited v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 3227, (24 July 1996), Toronto 93-CQ-33824 (Gen. Div.), aff'd [1997] O.J. No. 3891 (C.A.).
16 The second element of the tort, that is an act or threat in furtherance of the improper purpose, must be separate and distinct from the proceedings themselves. If it is not, there cannot be an abuse of process. This has been set out by Eberle J. in Teledata Communications Inc. v. Westburne Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (1990), 65 D.L.R. (4th) 636 (Ont. H. Ct.). The Court has also said that there must be a nexus between any threat and the improper pleading complained of. See: Dooley, supra at p. 791. It is Lee's position that Nair's pleading in his Counterclaim, has not met the two elements of the test.
17 Nair says that he has met the two-part test. He says that Lee commenced the libel action for the collateral and improper purpose of silencing all of Mr. Lee's critics, including Nair, but not limited to him. It must be remembered, in examining what is in the article itself, not only can the writer be considered a critic, and Nair considered a critic, but others in Singapore and elsewhere, who attempt to criticize Lee and his government's methods of trying to silence critics and opposition, are open to silencing because of what Nair says is a pattern of using the libel process to succeed in generally using whatever measures Lee considers necessary to thwart the "established international rights in respect of freedom of expression." Whether or not this can be supported at Trial is not for me to decide. It is, however, not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Lee's action is being brought in a country which prides itself in allowing freedom of political expression. Nair says that this is not the case in Singapore, where there is a climate of fear and intimidation among the residents.
18 Nair says that his situation can be distinguished from that in Pizza Pizza, supra, where Cameron J. struck the counterclaim as having a purpose concurrent with the legitimate purpose of the plaintiff in bringing its libel action. Nair claims that there is no legitimate purpose which could save Lee's libel action since Lee is indifferent to his reputation among the readership of the Globe & Mail. Nair says that Lee's action, "... is a mere stalking horse intended to further foster and continue a climate of fear and intimidation." I agree with Nair's position that the issue is whether the "predominate" (as opposed to exclusive) purpose is ulterior. Given the political and international aspect of the tenor of the article, and given that Lee has seemingly no residence/domicile or other connection to Canada, it is within the scope of the test for Nair to argue that the predominate purpose is ulterior. See: Hilltop Group Ltd. v. Katana, [2000] O.J. No. 2576, Court File No. 96-CU-106768, where Campbell Colin J. examines what Sharpe J., as he then was, set out in Scintilore Explorations Ltd. v. Larche (1999), 48 B.L.R. (2d) 248. There Sharpe J. noted at p. 317 that the predominate purpose must "be outside the ambit of the legal claim on which the Court is asked to adjudicate". I am satisfied that the first element of the tort, as pleaded, has been met.
19 Nair says that he has also met the second part of the test, in that Lee has taken an overt act or step in furtherance of his improper purpose in invoking the legal process. Nair says that he was forced to resign as President of the Republic of Singapore in March of 1985 and was falsely labeled as an alcoholic. Several years later when Nair says he first spoke out politically for the first time since resigning, Lee tabled a white paper in the Singapore's parliament, which included extracts of a confidential nature from Nair's personal medical records and correspondence. Nair says this was done to silence his political views and Nair says that Lee further threatened to and ultimately did arrange to have Nair's pension withheld. Nair then left Singapore and did not speak out politically from 1988 until he granted the interview for the Globe and Mail article in question. Given these actions and steps taken by Lee in Singapore to create a climate of fear and intimidation of critics, Nair says that this new action is intended to be and is a threat which is on-going and pervasive. Nair says these overt acts and threats in the past by Lee against Nair only went below the surface, but remained always there even though Nair left Singapore and remained silent for over a decade. These threats have resurfaced and re-emerged in this new libel action in the country in which Nair sought freedom from political threats and overt legal actions against him. To Nair, the threat is on-going and pervasive, and in my view, it meets the second part of the test.
20 I am therefore satisfied, in these unusual circumstances, that Nair has met the two-part test. Lee's Motion is therefore dismissed. If the parties cannot otherwise agree on Costs, I will receive brief written submissions by them.
GREER J.
What is a ''half-truth'' that has been so cleverly coined by the Great Shepherd, who is such an expert in this art that he will be able to identify and fear the attempts at half-truths as much as he will fear the lies ?
Some are so adapt at weaving the lies as truths, that no one can possibly identify where the lies begin that will morph into the real world as an illusory 'Truth'.
Singapore has been promoted as the oasis in a region that is supposedly torn apart by political instability and economic strifes - unfortunately, an oasis sometimes exist in the heat as mirages to those who thirst for water.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Eh lionnoisy, how come you never tell us why you created the other half of yourself, makepeace?
Is your behaviour in here also not the half-truths?
LOL!
pray tell us what have lionnoisy's behaviour have to do with a public figure who seeks to attain high office to rule over its citizens? -
oh let me give u some follow up,courtesy of CSJ!!
u seem just give part of the story.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleeconomistlky.html
Singapore Democratic Party
The Economist apologises to LKY
20 Jan 05SIR – In your obituary you wrote “by Mr Nair's account, Mr Lee promised to crush him [J.B. Jeyaretnam], crying ‘I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy.’ That image had haunted Mr Nair before, as the worst expression of arrogant colonialism” (“Devan Nair”, December 24th).
This and many other statements Mr Nair made after his bout of alcoholism in 1985 were unfounded. One statement he made in 1991 forced Mr Lee Kuan Yew to sue him and the Canadian Globe & Mail in Toronto. The matter was settled when Mr Nair's two sons issued this statement, reported in the Globe & Mail on July 1st 2004:
“Mr C.V. Devan Nair, aged 80, has been diagnosed as suffering from the beginning stages of dementia, an ailment which affects his memory. He is no longer able to give evidence in court proceedings.
“On March 29th 1999, the Globe & Mail published an article by Mr Marcus Gee. The article quoted Mr Nair as saying that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had Singapore government doctors slip hallucination drugs to Mr Nair to make him appear befuddled.
“Having reviewed the records, and on the basis of the family's knowledge of the circumstances leading to Mr Nair's resignation as president of Singapore in March 1985, we can declare that there is no basis for this allegation.”
YEONG YOON YING
Press secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore
Apology: We recognise that the statements attributed to Mr Lee in the obituary on Devan Nair and which are referred to in Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying’s letter above, are false. We apologise to Mr Lee for having published them, and we unreservedly withdraw them. We have agreed to pay Mr Lee damages and to indemnify him for all costs incurred by him in connection with this matter.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5407466
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
oh let me give u some follow up,courtesy of CSJ!!
u seem just give part of the story.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleeconomistlky.html
Singapore Democratic Party
The Economist apologises to LKY
20 Jan 05SIR – In your obituary you wrote “by Mr Nair's account, Mr Lee promised to crush him [J.B. Jeyaretnam], crying ‘I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy.’ That image had haunted Mr Nair before, as the worst expression of arrogant colonialism” (“Devan Nair”, December 24th).
This and many other statements Mr Nair made after his bout of alcoholism in 1985 were unfounded. One statement he made in 1991 forced Mr Lee Kuan Yew to sue him and the Canadian Globe & Mail in Toronto. The matter was settled when Mr Nair's two sons issued this statement, reported in the Globe & Mail on July 1st 2004:
“Mr C.V. Devan Nair, aged 80, has been diagnosed as suffering from the beginning stages of dementia, an ailment which affects his memory. He is no longer able to give evidence in court proceedings.
“On March 29th 1999, the Globe & Mail published an article by Mr Marcus Gee. The article quoted Mr Nair as saying that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had Singapore government doctors slip hallucination drugs to Mr Nair to make him appear befuddled.
“Having reviewed the records, and on the basis of the family's knowledge of the circumstances leading to Mr Nair's resignation as president of Singapore in March 1985, we can declare that there is no basis for this allegation.”
YEONG YOON YING
Press secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore
Apology: We recognise that the statements attributed to Mr Lee in the obituary on Devan Nair and which are referred to in Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying’s letter above, are false. We apologise to Mr Lee for having published them, and we unreservedly withdraw them. We have agreed to pay Mr Lee damages and to indemnify him for all costs incurred by him in connection with this matter.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5407466
Thanks for the follow up, lionnoisy. I am glad you cleared that up. For a moment I had thought MM LKY lied or told a half truth as another poster in this thread had claimed, but with your follow up, it looks like the one telling half truths and lies here is not MM LKY or you, but that poster. Why do that poster wants us to think his way? -
Originally posted by Richman.888:
pray tell us what have lionnoisy's behaviour have to do with a public figure who seeks to attain high office to rule over its citizens?Pray tell us how does a new character suddenly turn up in agreement with a universally reviled person like lionnoisy? Who more intrestingly even bothers to read lionnoisy's lengthy cut and paste posts that show no original thought?
Besides sockpuppeting there is also meatpuppeting. Even when a infantile character like Gazelle agrees with lionnoisy he is capable of showing some basic individualism to his replies.
What does lionnoisy behavior have to do? Basically put apparently he's no better, or even lower then the person he accuses of playing low ball.
Creating personas to talk to himself, now that's interesting.
-
why argue?
GE GE GE GE~!!!!!
-
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Since we are on the topic of half-truths here...
Eh lionnoisy until now you still haven't replied....
Who REALLY wrote this?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Pray tell us how does a new character suddenly turn up in agreement with a universally reviled person like lionnoisy? Who more intrestingly even bothers to read lionnoisy's lengthy cut and paste posts that show no original thought?
Besides sockpuppeting there is also meatpuppeting. Even when a infantile character like Gazelle agrees with lionnoisy he is capable of showing some basic individualism to his replies.
What does lionnoisy behavior have to do? Basically put apparently he's no better, or even lower then the person he accuses of playing low ball.
Creating personas to talk to himself, now that's interesting.
ST, I will address you by ST so as not to besmirch the good name of my country and its great people. Thanks for your reply but then i fail to accept your point that 'he is no better, or even lower than.." yet you had not shown conclusive evidences of his deeds.All i saw was speculations and please! claiming another person is him? Did you call up his ISP and traced his connection to his home? I am sure you didn't, yet here you are, loud and noisy, making all kinds of speculations on his character.
You even claim he is 'universally reviled'. By who? By simple minded people such as you? Even Sadamm or Osama could not reach those heights! Surely you exaggerate! And exaggerations coupled with baseless accusations only make you lose even further credibility,if you had not lost it all yet, and ends up making you look like a stuttering village idiot.
Even forced confessions will not hold up in court. Surely you know even that?
I hope that you in your speculative posts pointing towards distractions, are not attempts to cover up the misdeeds of a public figure seeking high office - an office that holds the highest administrative capability and moral integrity of the land. He handles the lives of all citizens in every aspect of their daily living.
It would be a danger to all if less than honest persons be elected to that office, wherelse, the ordinary people, whom would have a responsibility to their fellow men, it is only to those whom he comes into contact with. With the truism that no one is perfect, ordinary folks' integrity are valued and an added asset, but not a requirement in our daily dealings, for we can live without friends whom have no integrity, but we cannot live without leadership of moral integrity in our society.
I am a busy man earning a living and really have difficulty in finding time follow daily on the news. I had always wondered on the mystery surrounding our ex-President Nair, and being like all other apolitical citizens, left it as such for it affects me none the least. There's job opportunities, money to be earned, roof over our heads, children educated for the best results, etc, under the current administration who had proven results for years.
As there seemed to be not much reports on it, I began to believe the oppositions' speculations as truths - something went on behind the scenes.
It was not until very much later that I found out the truth - a sad case of a good man turning senile. The quietness surrounding his mystery was not 'cover-up' played up by some
irresponsible opposition members or supporters, but actually to hide his shame before a nation.
Thus, what lionnoisy did was a good job to remind all who come here to know the truth, with links provided on the veracity of such reports, that we may be better informed when the time to cast our votes come.
I am only saddened that there are still some misguided people who continue to support and even help to publish lies and half truths openly here.
-
I feel for PAP
-
hmm, imo.. the truth should be decided by the individual, based on the facts that is laid before him, not to be told and "forced" down their throats by someone else who thinks something is the "truth"
in this thread, all i see is that someone here tries to decide for everyone else, what the "truth" is.
is that how it works?
i believe.. we all are capable enough to decide for ourselves, what the truth is.
-
ST, I will address you by ST so as not to besmirch the good name of my country and its great people. Thanks for your reply but then i fail to accept your point that 'he is no better, or even lower than.." yet you had not shown conclusive evidences of his deeds.
All i saw was speculations and please! claiming another person is him? Did you call up his ISP and traced his connection to his home? I am sure you didn't, yet here you are, loud and noisy, making all kinds of speculations on his character.
For someone who speaks so much about "clarifying" things and finding out the truth, you seem to have a total lack of ability to critically examine any evidence in this matter whosoever.
Before you xia suay yourself any further, why don't you hop down to the topic in which he started all this, look at the posts and his responses for yourself, and then decide for yourself if lionnoisy has not been talking to himself and acting in the most infantile way in sgforums.
Also, go to military nuts and read just a bit on his topics in there which are pure comedy.
-
Speaking of "besmirching the good name of our country and its great people", go review lionnoisy's long history of rabidly irrational anti-Australian posts in this forum as well as his constant berating and dismissal of Singaporeans who live in Australia who contradict his posts.
Who is the one truly smearing the name of our country to other nations in here? AFAIK the ones that make the most negative impression are not people like Dr. Chee, but the ugly Singaporean who sees it fit to slam just about anything that is overseas to feel better about ourselves.
For some reason if a certain person tries to argue that our Mandai UAF facilities are better or on par with Cheyenne Mountain in the states, you know something is up with his ability to comprehend basic logic...
-
You even claim he is 'universally reviled'. By who? By simple minded people such as you? Even Sadamm or Osama could not reach those heights! Surely you exaggerate! And exaggerations coupled with baseless accusations only make you lose even further credibility,if you had not lost it all yet, and ends up making you look like a stuttering village idiot.
I was speaking in terms of this forum wiseguy.
And yes is very safe to say that lionnoisy by most measure, is well known as a first class nut in here, especially if you read some of his other topics.
What he may say might be valid at first (it's not hard to be valid if all you do is to copy and paste posts and pretend the opinions there are your own), but once he starts to stand on his own limb of logic and critical thinking things come apart for him very fast. It becomes worse when he tries to tie all the stuff he copies and pastes together into a bizzare theory of his own. Apparently you have not seen it happen before, but rest assured that is has, and will happen.
And it would behoove you to do some homework, go to most of his topics (especially in military nuts) with actual discussion as you will see what I mean. Beyond infantile spamming of the forums with pointless and mostly rubbish posts.
I kind of like the topic where he had an utter lack of ability to comprehend the difference between a brown water and blue water navy and dragged a pointless topic on for pages on how the RSN apparently is better equipped to defend Australia then the RAN itself despite the fact we are not even a blue water navy, or my personal favourite, his imaginative ideas on how our soldiers should run with the SAR-21 carried in one hand in battle by the virtue of the fact that it had a scope handle and hence it ought to be used.
Seriously, this guy is a joke. He lacks any display of logic, intellectual intergity and honesty. Anybody who has seen him in here for long enough will vouch for that. The best part is that he tends to quietly slip away from topics that he started and are unable to win in debate, and then start another topic without ever talking about the post that he lost, but then recycle his old arguments in the new threads hoping to bait newcomers into replying to him and allowing him to spam his own recycled posts and arguments. His anti-australian threads are a prime example of such infantile behaviour.
-
Sigh Richman... at the very least when you want to astroturf, do make an effort to appear even basically honest or at least put some effort into it.
Your sudden lack of response for your disasterous support for lionnoisy in the light of his "activities" having been revealed is really telling.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Sigh Richman... at the very least when you want to astroturf, do make an effort to appear even basically honest or at least put some effort into it.
Your sudden lack of response for your disasterous support for lionnoisy in the light of his "activities" having been revealed is really telling.
Lack of response? I had already said all i wanted to say and still mean every word i posted. Is there a need to respond further to you?Afterall, it is more a personal issue between the 2 of you. If you refuse to listen to sense, then it's your loss, not mine.
There is a bigger national issue here than your inflated ego and self importance on the lionnoisy issue will realize, and that is the vile CSJ.
As for 'disasterous support" of lionnoisy, do you always exaggerate your words? If you choose such words, then in a similar vein, i would say it is only disasterous for you, in more sense than the word suggests.
-
Tsk tsk tsk, please don't try to squirm out of what you said:
All i saw was speculations and please! claiming another person is him? Did you call up his ISP and traced his connection to his home? I am sure you didn't, yet here you are, loud and noisy, making all kinds of speculations on his character.
Please answer this: are you not convinced not that you are instead the loud and noisy one in claiming there is nothing but speculation?
Have you not failed to do your homework before you shot your mouth off?
As for 'disasterous support" of lionnoisy, do you always exaggerate your words? If you choose such words, then in a similar vein, i would say it is only disasterous for you, in more sense than the word suggests.
There is no exaggeration here, have you not gone as wrong as wrong could be in trying to even go down that line of trying to defend him without even knowing what had transpired? It's no surprise you went disasterously wrong given lionnoisy is quite clearly... a disaster.
At the very least bother to click on lionnoisy and see what he wrote in previous posts and topics before you scream about "speculations and please!" but apparently even that you failed to do.
LOL, talk about self-pwnage.
And most interesting, you have not commented on any other topics besides this one with your account despite it having being a few days and a lot of interesting discussion, could it be all you have to say in here was "thanks lionnoisy, never saw it that way."
Talk about astroturfing... has anyone in here ever heard of this case where a person has more accounts that he can handle?
-
wrong posting sorry
-
-
''A rebuttal to PAP media crucifixion of Dr Chee Soon Juan'' .
by Chia Ti-Lik
The week before this, Dr Chee Soon Juan was involved in a trial against the two most powerful men in Singapore being the father and son team of Prime Minister and Minister Mentor. This clash had been recorded on the Court's audio recording and available for all to hear.
The much awaited clash produced collateral damage in the form of Justice Belinda Ang's citation of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin for contempt of Court. It inevitably resulted in jail sentences for the pair - 12 days for Dr. Chee and 10 days for Siok Chin.
After sending off Dr. Chee and Siok Chin on the afternoon of 4th June 2008, I had thought that the saga had ended. However, on 7th June 2008 Saturday morning, I was met with three articles touching on Dr. Chee. These were from Chua Lee Hoong of the Straits Times and Nazry Bahrawi and Derrick A. Paulo of Today.
In short, the articles were as follows:1. Chua Lee Hoong attempts to take a swipe at Dr. Chee lamenting on his supposed squandered potential.
2. Nazry Bahrawi questions Dr. Chee's game plan.
3. Derrick A Paulo confesses to having less than independent thought in that remarks by a colleague shapes his opinion of Dr. Chee. Interestingly, his views are not shaped by what he perceives through his senses and processed by independent sentient thought.
The common thread throughout the three articles are that they sought to portray a stance of neutrality and concern but in the same breath seek to insidiously poison the readers' minds as to who Dr. Chee is and what he stands for.
I have penned down my responses to the same on the following articles.
If it is any significance, it should be noted that these articles are published whilst Dr. Chee is being held in incarceration for 12 days for pursuing a certain line of cross-examination of MM and PM in Court.
Derrick A Paulo's article in Weekend Today 7-8th June 2008
It is amazing how sometimes things in Singapore play themselves out.
I met Derrick A Paulo during my campaign in the last Election in GE2006. I somehow formed the opinion that Derrick was a reporter who was sympathetic to the opposition cause.
My impressions of Derrick are somewhat changed by his latest article. In that article I see Derrick performing the function of a columnist. His writing was that of a commentary. He was giving his personal opinion on the subject to be discussed.
Rightly so that his designation has changed to that of an Assistant Editor and not just a mere journalist or reporter I had known him to be. His current position allows him to comment on matters and he has chosen in a timely fashion to comment and give his opinion of Chee Soon Juan.
Firstly, I would like to state that it is strange that Derrick is writing about how his ideas are being shaped by those around him.
Naturally this topic does not stray into what was exchanged in Court between the Lees and the Chees. Interestingly though it was the persistence of the Chees in pursuing a certain line of questioning that brought them into contempt of Court.
Why does the press not choose to discuss this tumultuous exchange in open Court that resulted in the jail sentences for Chee Siok Chin and Chee Soon Juan?
Is it simply because the audio recording of the exchange is not freely available? Had the audio recording been made freely available, I would surmise that the focus would have been on the discourse between the Lees and Chees instead of it being glossed over and not given the due attention which it deserves.
Derrick digs up the past on Chee Soon Juan's debate with George Yeo on health care costs and subsidies. If that is supposed to be of any weight, is it not true now that Singapore's health care costs are skyrocketing through the roof? Singaporeans have to judge which the greater sin is.
A typographical error? Or the brazen collective inability of a bunch of ministers to solve a problem highlighted by a political opponent more than a decade and a half earlier?
Which is a bigger sin? A few dollars in postage costs, or millions of dollars of taxpayers' money?
The oft quoted excuse that a politician is no longer relevant because of the lack of support he is obtaining at a certain time is often used by those in power in an attempt to dissuade those from following the footsteps of that politician.
One need no further reminder that sham elections by Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party when he was in power had returned a vote of no less than 99% to the dictator.
Derrick betrays his pro-establishment double standards mindset that foreign connections have to be abandoned in the face of a need to win local support.
May I then ask why do our leaders keep on making overseas trips to meet foreign leaders especially those of dubious legitimacy and standing, ever so often?
Singapore is a city state which cannot live in isolation. Singapore may be an island but no Singaporean should be an island.
The government has exhorted our people over the years to work overseas and build an external economy. We were asked to position ourselves as global citizens. Our Government is a "foreigner lover" through and through in that it absorbs foreigners into civil service, welcomes foreigners into Singapore with more than open arms, and it is ever willing to cheapen the Singapore Citizenship by offering it to people whom have never made an iota of contribution to the Republic.
It is strange that when the establishment attempts to take a swipe at Dr. Chee, it forgets all that it has done. Like the thief who covers his ears as he steals the bell, it does not mean that if you do not hear it (or should I say choose not to hear it), the bell did not ring.
To give due credit to Derrick, I can say that Derrick has been reading on Dr. Chee's civil disobedience principles and trying to make sense out of them and Derrick tries his best to distinguish Singapore from the countries where civil disobedience has succeeded in bringing about change.
Whilst it is true that Dr Chee's civil disobedience principles are partly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and to a certain extent Nelson Mandela and it is also true that Singapore needs Singaporeans to change things.
It is a different ball game when intelligent and educated people in a position like Derrick choose to please the establishment by discouraging an entirely peaceful but assertive manner of placing pressure on the Government and encouraging avenues where it has been proven to be ineffective in bringing about change, it is no wonder that change is itself impeded. What have Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong achieved after more than 17 and 24 years respectively in parliament? A mere illusion of hope? Or a balm to soothe the wounded pride of the opposition?
In the article, I further sense a tinge of concern, persuasion and almost pleading for Chee Soon Juan to abandon his current course.
In as much as I try not to read too much into the workings of Derrick's mind but judging from the looks of the article which I have dissected, it is not difficult to position where his loyalty lies and from where the plea for Chee Soon Juan to cease his campaign originated from.
Chua Lee Hoong – The Squandered Potential of Chee Soon Juan: Thinking Aloud (ST 7th June 2008)
Chua Lee Hoong begins her article citing the entry of Dr. Chee into politics in 1992 then goes in depth into why she thinks Chee Soon Juan has squandered his potential.
Ms Chua also attempts to play psychologists in branding the subject of discussion i.e. Dr. Chee as someone with a personality disorder.
She even does further into issues between God and Man and between God-fearing men.
My attention is drawn to the fact that Chua Lee Hoong was invited twice to attend a forum on Press Freedom wherein she would have met Dr. Chee in person to express such views. I understand that Ms Chua has declined to attend twice citing various reasons.
Ms Chua not only knows that Dr. Chee is in prison at this moment. Incidentally, it is also during this period that she chooses to think aloud on matters outside her knowledge, expertise and training.
Nazry Bahrawi - What is Chee Soon Juan's game plan? (Weekend Today 7-8th June 2008)
Before his article was published, Nazry had emailed me near noon of 4th June 2008 and called me to draw my attention to the mail.
Thereafter, Nazry SMSed me twice, trying to get me to answer the mail. It turned out that I had no time to address the email as I was busy with Gopalan Nair's matter myself.
I only saw the email shortly before Nazry's article came out on 7th June 2008.
From the way Nazry's questions were phrased, it betrays that he had already formed an idea of how he wanted to pitch his article even before he had obtained his interviews.
In any event, Nazry's choice of quotes and interviews were obviously attempts to put Dr. Chee in bad light. Nazry cited the following:-1. Non-graduate MP Charles Chong's attempt to pay psychologist by assessing Dr. Chee as a "complex character" and referring to the below and his expression of magnanimity and largess to have compassion for those who fall short of their own dreams and appear to be challenged in more than one way.
2. During the assessment of damages hearing, Lee Kuan Yew had quoted expert opinion from his experts commenting in vacuo that Dr. Chee was a megalomaniac, as if that carried any probity according to rules of evidence.
3. Minister Mentor LKY agreeing with SPP's Chiam See Tong on Dr. Chee Soon Juan being a megalomaniac.
4. An unnamed woman whom we do not even know actually exists using the words "backstreet brawler … doubt he is serious about being the opposition … "
5. Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre, Dr. Terence Chong, Institute of SEA Studies, NMP Siew Kum Hong, Assoc Prof. Eugene Tan SMU, Dr. Gillian Koh, IPS further lend their weight to the article that Dr. Chee Soon Juan would not get anywhere politically.
Nazry's article then cites the comments that the PAP would actually attempt to change tack towards Chee Soon Juan, by ignoring Dr. Chee and ceasing further defamation suits against him.
This is not the first time the press paves the way for PAP policy retreats.
If it is of any significance, it pays to note that such talk only emanated from the PAP camp just days after the scathing exchange between the Lees and the Chees in court.
Perhaps, the first ever of such face to face engagements between the Lees and the Chees are so much more than what the PAP and its administration could bear, such that the longstanding use of lawsuits have become an unattractive option.
Conclusion
In short, we have a political editor trying to play psychologist, an assistant editor without an independent opinion, and a journalist who had an opinion of how the article should read even before he started his interviews.
Faced with such glaring facts, it is no wonder the press in Singapore is being ranked 154th in the world.
Another thing
People operating under anxiety focus too much on Chee Soon Juan's political manoeuvres, which they incidentally opine will not bear fruit, and forget that Dr. Chee is a fully qualified psychologist even by the extremely stringent standards in the United States of America.
If there is anything to learn from what these characters like Lee Kuan Yew, Charles Chong, Chiam See Tong, Chua Lee Hoong attempt to play masak-masak Singapore-standard psychologist, one need only to be reminded that imitation is actually the sincerest form of flattery. -
at least CSJ tell the half truth that most singaporeans dont even know.
that GOOD DEED!.
-
Those that I despise are the running dogs of PAP who denies the truth.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Those that I despise are the running dogs of PAP who denies the truth.
sadly to say,a dog in SG is much bettr than human beings
in some countries,including some near us.
If u not happy,u can just migrate to US etc, like Nair,with
the kind assistances of passport and good English.
trash mountain children---yahoo images search
u or your kids will do this if SG ruled by ........
-
u or your kids will do this if SG ruled by ........
....People who make clones and refused to admit up to it.
ROFLCOPTER
