CSC game plan in travel application to Stanford
-
Sequences of the case
1.''Application decisions (of Stanford Summer programme)
will be available no later than the first week of March, 2008''(Stanford web site)
2.But she applied on 17 June to OA for travel.(http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080801_513.shtml)
3.OA rejetced her for second appeal and reply dated 11 July.
4.Stanford's offer of honorarium was dated 22 July.
Pl read my posting below.
4.CSC posted 3 postings dated July 23,25 and 28.
On 23 July posting,she pretended that she did not know the
offer of honorarium dated 22 July.
@@@@@@@@@@@@
What was CSC's, Chee Siok Chin,
game plan in application to OA for travelling to Stanford?
Why did she apply so late on 17 June,3 months after the scheduled
notification of decision ''no later than the first week of March''?
What is the game plan of CSC in the application for attending
Stanford
Summer Fellows on Democracy and Development?
I found the incident is fishy on the timing of postings
and the dates of events and letters.
Chee Siok Chin---SDP Leader and possible SG leader,
managing US$300 billions in net assets under Temasek and GIC!!
Can we trust her with our futures?
Has she just told us one side of the coin,again?
She posted 3 postings dated July 23,25 and 28.
A.Did CSC purposely delay lodging of
the application or OA purposely delaying approval of the applications
for travel?OA and Ministry of Laws shall adopt a proactive role
to counter the claims of wrongful refusal,and delay ,if any.
(PS__She applied on 17 June!!)
B.When CSC posted the 23 July posting,did she know
the fact that Stanford alreday sent the letter about the
US$2,000 honoroium ,dated 22 July, to Minister of Laws
?Did she pretend not aware of the honorarium
when she posted 23 July posting?
FACTS
1.Screen 1
In a posting dated 23 July Wed,CSC said he appealed to Minister
of Laws after OA refused her application to Stanford Summer Fellows
on Democracy and Development,which will be held
July 28 - August 15.A invitaion letter from Stanford was posted there.
This invitation letter shall be not later than first week of March,acording
to the Stanford Summer Fellows web.
http://cddrl.stanford.edu/fellowships/summerfellows
Application decisions will be available no later than the first week of March, 2008.
(PS__She applied on 17 June!!)
In this posting,CSC just complained OA refusal based on
But now the OA says that "none of these travels have translated into a benefit to your creditors" and rejected her application to go to Standford.
Then she posted the followings to indicate further the refusal based
on no monetary benefits on her creditor,ie Singapore governments .
The Ministry responded thus: "We regret to inform you that the decision to reject your travel application remains. The OA is not persuaded that your attendance at the fellowship program in Stanford University would result is any substantial additional benefit to your creditors."
According to her 2nd posting,the reply from OA on her 2nd appeal
was dated 11 July 2008.Pl take note on this date.see C below for link.
So,in this posting dated 23 July,CSC gave impression that she did not aware the
honorarium of US$2,000 that Stanford Summer Fellows would give
her for a lectuer and OA refusal based on no monetary benefits to
creditor.
I think she wanted to impress reader that if she can prove her Stanford
travel could give monetary benefits to creditor,OA shall allow her
application.If OA further refuse her application upon her proof
of monetary benefits,she can darken name of SG one more
time.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1-singapore/690-govt-bans-chee-siok-chins-from-attending-leadership-program-at-stanford
2.Screen 2
True enough.Stanford offered honorarium of US$2,000 for her to
give a lectuer in the Summer Fellows.OA still refused her application
despite this US$2,000 bait which CSC said would pay to SG governemnt.
No hurry.I will say my stand on her application.
But i will like draw your attention on the date of offer of this US$2,000
honorarium.U can read from link B below that the offer of
honorarium was dated 22 July !!
This proved that when CSC posted her 23 July posting ,in link B,
she already known the offer of honorarium!!But she pretended not aware
of the offer.What is her purposes on doing this?
Dates of events and letters
Stanford shall give decision '' no later than the first week of March, 2008.''
When did CSC apply for travel and did OA give reply?
It seems from link B that Minister of Laws gave his reply on 11 July
and then Stanford's offer of honorarium came on 22 July.
CSC posted first posting on 23 July,pretending not aware of
the offer of honorarium.Then,in her 25 July posting,
she pretended she just know the new
offer and that honorarium shall make
SG gavamna allow her travel.
A.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1-singapore/690-govt-bans-chee-siok-chins-from-attending-leadership-program-at-stanford
B.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1-singapore/713-stanford-university-writes-to-minister-over-cscs-case-
C.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1-singapore/729-govts-excuse-banning-chee-siok-chins-travel-exposed-
Shall gavaman allow her travel?
She alreday travelled few times after declared bankcrupt.
US$2,000 is just money not enough!!Is there any banker's gurantee
for this 2 grains?What if she dunt pay after the trip,saying
i alreday buying books on democracy and freedom of expressions?
3.Will her attendance help SG?
The purposes of the workshop
who will play important roles in their country's political, economic, and social development. We anticipate recruiting a group of 25-30 individuals dedicated to democracy, development and rule of law promotion within their home countries
Do u think she fit the bill?
4.Stanfor's letter is very stupid
It talked about CSC's freedom and said:
the opportunity to enhance her knowledge and skills in ways that will benefit Singapore and also improve her professional capacity, including her ability to earn income in the future.
see link B.What is the points of grooming one who will soon
cannot run for election?
-
Chairperson of Workers Party have said somethings like
''No need to paint ruling party worse than the reality.''
But this is just CSC did,if u trust the version of story by OA.
Our possible nation leader CSC only submitted application on
17 June,3 months after the scheduled date of notification of
decision that Stanford
said on its web site which i put the link in above posting.
Besides,CSC refused let OA inspect her passport and disclosed
details of the travel.
'' no later than the first week of March, 2008.''
ä¸�过官方委托人在å�—è¯¢æ—¶è¯´ï¼Œå½“å±€æ˜¯å› å¾�淑真一å†�æ‹’ç»�交出护照给他们检查，和拒ç»�é€�露æ¤è¡Œçš„活动详情，æ‰�ä¸�批准让她出国。
å¾�淑真是在6月17æ—¥å�‘官方委托人æ��出申请，è¦�求在上个月26日至本月20日期间出国å‰�往斯å�¦ç¦�大å¦ã€‚她å�Žæ�¥åœ¨ä¸Šæœˆ3æ—¥å�Œå½“局的官员会é�¢ã€‚
http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080801_513.shtml
å¾�æ·‘çœŸåˆ†åˆ«æ‹–æ¬ é©¬æ�¥äºšé“¶è¡Œ1万5896元和总检察署4万3364元，总é¢�超过5万9000元。至今，她å�ªå�¿è¿˜äº†550元。
CSC still owe $15,896 to MAY Bank and $43,364 to AGC.
So far ,she phas paid $550.
In Truths.We Trust.
2.Pl take note CSC never stated in SDP site that when did she first apply
for the travel.
-
Sequences of the case
1.''Application decisions (of Stanford Summer programme)
will be available no later than the first week of March, 2008''(Stanford web site)
2.But she applied on 17 June to OA for travel.(http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080801_513.shtml)
3.OA gave her reply for second appeal on 11 July.
4.Stanford's offer of honorarium was dated 22 July.
Pl read my above posting.
4.CSC posted 3 postings dated July 23,25 and 28.
On 23 July posting,she pretended that she did not know the
offer of honorarium dated 22 July.
ST photo
ST reported her case.But the ST reporter failed to ask CSC
when she had applid for travel to Stanford.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_263448.html
OPPOSITION politician Chee Siok Chin has been stopped from attending a Stanford University programme in the United States, as she is an undischarged bankrupt.
The Official Assignee's office, which must give permission before a bankrupt can leave the country, has turned down her request as the programme was deemed to be of no benefit to her creditors.
The decision sparked multiple appeals from the 42-year-old and even a letter from Stanford to Law Minister K. Shanmugam.
The Official Assignee's office is sticking to its stand.
Ms Chee applied and was accepted into the Summer fellows Program at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law. It runs from July 28 to Aug 15 at the school's campus in California.
According to information put up on the Singapore Democratic Party website, she was one of 27 people accepted into the annual programme.
Ms Chee subsequently asked for permission to leave the country to attend the course, as bankrupts are required to do.
The SDP committee member and sister of party chief Chee Soon Juan was made bankrupt last year after failing to continue paying costs incurred in a 2005 case that was thrown out by the High Court.
She and three others had staged a protest outside the CPF Building in Robinson Road in August 2005, wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with the names of national institutions. Police dispersed them for being a 'public nuisance'.
Three of them including Ms Chee then initiated proceedings against the Home Affairs Minister and Police Commissioner in the High Court, asking it to declare the police action 'unconstitutional'.
The case was thrown out and three ordered to pay costs amounting to around $23,700.
She told The Straits Times on Friday that her request to leave the country was turned down early last month.
Aug 1, 2008 
Opposition party's Chee Siok Chin stopped from attending US programmeBy Jeremy Au Yong -
....
-
to my immediate forumer Poh Ah Pak:
is it the right thread u should put?
i alreday discussed here:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/325406
-
That was my error, I withdrew the post.
-
The reports of ST and TODAY need to polish their skills in reporting.
They should asked when did CSC lodge the first application and
subsequent appeals?
Now they just reported OA REJECTED her applications.
SDP won again,tx to reporters!!
-
All mainstream media in this country is under control of the state.
Opposition can never "win" PAP regime under such conditions.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
All mainstream media in this country is under control of the state.
Opposition can never "win" PAP regime under such conditions.
Of course.
No one should expect the opponent to give away victory.
PAP, and any one of the opposition, WP, SDA, RP, and even the SDP will not make it easy for an opponent to "win". Anyone that does so, is not magnanimous, but stupid.
-
OA seem very fast in response on 05 aug 2008 ST forums.
But this reposense failed to indicate that CSC applied for travel
very late,on 17 June,3 months after the scheduled
date of notification of decision from Stanford~!!
But this reported on ZAOBAO which i showed in the above posting.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_264652.html
Aug 5, 2008 Why Chee's sister denied Stanford visitI REFER to last Saturday's article, ''No' to Stanford trip for Chee's sister'. It contains a number of serious errors. It is regrettable that The Straits Times did not seek to verify the facts with us, unlike Lianhe Zaobao which did verify, and therefore published a more accurate article. Ms Chee Siok Chin applied to the Official Assignee (OA) on June 17 for permission to travel to Stanford University in the United States from July 26 to Aug 20. She met officers of our department on July 3. At the meeting, as is the general practice, our officers asked her about her previous travels and requested to inspect her passport, since she needed permission of the OA to travel. She refused to give her passport for verification. She was also asked how she would be paying for her trip. It was important to establish this. But she refused to answer. Our officers also asked her to verify information she had given previously in her income and expenditure statements. She again refused to answer. Ms Chee was under a legal duty to cooperate but quite cynically refused to do so. Thus her application to travel was rejected.
Ms Chee owes a total of more than $59,000 to two creditors - Maybank ($15,896.44) and the Attorney-General ($43,364.17). To date, she has paid only $550.
The ST report states that Ms Chee would be given an honorarium for a public speech while attending her course at Stanford University. She did not mention this to the OA's office during the interview on July 3. It surfaced only after her application was rejected. By then, she had clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to cooperate.
We have checked and would like to clarify that the Minister for Law did not receive any letter from Stanford University, contrary to what was reported.
Malcolm B.H. Tan
Assistant Official Assignee
for Official Assignee -
to be fair to CSC,
pl read her response to OA's letter to ST.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/793-oas-office-lied-about-chee-siok-chins-application-to-stanford
-
Read the comments all over the internet. Those who believe SDP will believe them even if they talk nonsense. Those who believe PAP will also believe their words even if it's nonsense. Same goes to the Lee v Chee trial. When it comes to who's telling the truth, it's a no win for either side. But neutrals will vote PAP based on their merits.
In years to come SDP will need alot more 'blind' loyalists than PAP has right now or it will forever be stuck because SDP cannot win over the neutrals.
-
Again.Chees just tell u the half truths!!
First,I am still waiting for her explanation why she applied on 17 June,
in fact she could apply as early as 24 May.
Second,CSC dares not tell u her case was rejected because
,among other things ,her lawyer Chia Ti Lik
''filed them after the Aug 18 deadline that had been set.''
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/Story/STIStory_274416.html
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1015-judge-avoids-deciding-on-oas-actions
This simple oversight just fails her case.Full Stop.
I have tell u many times,as Opposition,never make mistakes.
But who knows what is or are the real cause of this mistake?
Intenional or just pure over sight?
2.CSC still owes us explanation why did she apply for travel so late
She sould apply,if i am correct,2 months before travel. (the scheduled Standford
seminar in ''United States for the period from 28th July 2008 till 15th August 2008''.)
I think she could apply as early as 24 May 2008.
But she only applied on 17 June!!Why so late,Miss Chee?
Sequences of the case
1.''Application decisions (of Stanford Summer programme)
will be available no later than the first week of March, 2008''(Stanford web site)
2.But she applied on 17 June to OA for travel.(http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080801_513.shtml) vs could apply as early as 24 May 2008.
3.OA gave her reply for second appeal on 11 July.
4.Stanford's offer of honorarium was dated 22 July.
Pl read my above posting.
4.CSC posted 3 postings dated July 23,25 and 28.
On 23 July posting,she pretended that she did not know the
offer of honorarium dated 22 July.
5.11 August hearing
Chee version:
The hearing was initially fixed on 11 Aug 08. However, Judge Tan told Mr Chia Ti Lik, who was arguing for Ms Chee that the papers were not properly served on the Attorney General and that the wording of the OS lacked clarity.
The Judge then set another date for the hearing to be reconvened -- a full three weeks later on 1 Sep 08.In CSC words,Judge is always wrong.The seminar is scheduled end on 15 Aug.
In fact,the 11 Aug hearing was purely academic also!!
STimes version
A hearing took place on Aug 11, but proceedings were adjourned at Ms Chee's request as she had just engaged Mr Chia as her lawyer and he needed more time to prepare for the case.
6.Why did Judge refuse to review
Chees version
When the hearing resumed on 1 Sep, Judge Tan said that it was purely an "academic" exercise for him to rule on Ms Chee's application because the fellowship period was over. He thus dismissed the OS.
OS=Originating Summons
STimes version
Besides few other factors,
On Monday, Mr Chia also complained that Ms Chee was not given the right to reply as the court had previously rejected documents he wanted to file. But he admitted that this was because he had filed them after the Aug 18 deadline that had been set.
The Court see no new document and rejected the Review.
Dear learned lawyers in Singapore,pl learn and attend course
------write the right stuffs
------submit in right manners,in right place and before the dead line!!
Will Law Society organise some new courses for new birds as
well as old dogs!!!
BTW,u may be sued for negligences next time.
This time is just pure luck.
Learn a good lesson and move on.Good Luck---next time!!
-
Her Lawyer http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/
The Pincer Movement on Chee Siok Chin
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PINCER MOVEMENT
EXECUTED ON CHEE SIOK CHIN
wrote on this case.
I have 2 issues:
A>Earliest date of application for travel and when did she apply within
permitted time frame
1.I remember the earliest date for application for travel to OA
is 2 months before the travel.From my above posting,the earliest
date is 24 May.It was useless for her to apply on 28 April.
Did she want OA grant ger some favours or fears?
2.CSC applied on 17 June to OA for travel,according to
01 Aug zaobao .(http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080801_513.shtml)
Link cant work now.So when did she first apply within the
permitted time frame?
If the 2 months time frame is true,then
''CSC had requested the Official Assignee for permission from to travel
from as early as 28th April 2008'' is little bit misleading,if not cheating.
The adjournment, however, was not the cause of a delayed review application because CSC had requested the Official Assignee for permission from to travel from as early as 28th April 2008. In addition to that, she had sent reminders sent to the Official Assignee on 3 occasions: 2nd May 2008, 8th May 2008 and 13th May 2008.
Did Chia file before the dead line on 18 Aug
In Chia Ti Lik blog,he did not say directly he failed to file
before the dead line on 18 Aug.
He just said he has filed,but failed to explain it already passed
the dead line :
An unsuccessful attempt was made to file the Amended OS on 18th August but the Electronic Filing system refused to accept the documents....
The AG-C was aware of the difficulties encountered by CSC but was intent on keeping her at a disadvantage even though as at 22nd August 2008, the AG-C had been served with a copy each of the papers.
Pl note the deal line is 18 Aug.
Again,did anyone want AG treats him with fears or favours?
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/Story/STIStory_274416.html
On Monday(01 Sept ), Mr Chia also complained that Ms Chee was not given the right to reply as the court had previously rejected documents he wanted to file. But he admitted that this was because he had filed them after the Aug 18 deadline that had been set.
Politicis is not all about misleading and cheating
There is a huge market in SG as well as overseas to make PAP
,SG gavaman ,LKY LHL etc look bad.
From age 15 and to 85,it is trendy to critize them openly
in casual day to day meetings among frens,colleagues and relatives.
SG is really free.So,none of them will be locked up,unless they do not
commit political suicides,collectively.
There is no need to paint gavaman worse than it really is.
Black is black.White is white.
If u file after the dead line,tell people clearly.
Computer is not perfect,not just the OA system.
What prevent u from filing it earlier?
BTW,why u Opposition always do things at last minutes?
Can i trust u running Singapore?
Do u need to attend some course called Time Management?
How can i trust my family future in your good hands,
if u cannot file on time?
Dunt learn from Dr M wrote a important speech few days before
delivery,according to Mrs M!!
This is not the way to run a Country.
Dunt sue me.I am just exercise my right of freedom
of expression,which u guys die die advocate!!
-
DO u have an affair with CSC?? Seem like you know alot about this aunty.