Chee Soon Juan cheated Wall Street Journal
-
In the Lees v SDP and Chee in 2006 NKF law suit case,
have CSJ submitted defence to court?
Pl think before u answer.
The answer is'' NO''.
Chees,SDP and his lawyer Ravi did not submit defence.
Therefore,court granted Summary Judgement to Lees.
They gave up their chance .Full Stop.
Did they want court treat them fears or favours?
But now CSJ cheated WSJ and readers:
The Lees obtained summary judgment from the courts despite our defense, in which we cited disputes of fact and law. In other words, there were triable issues. The summary judgment meant that we were found guilty without being given the chance to call witnesses and cross-examine the plaintiffs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121522047871629771.html
This was Chees gave up the chance to cross exam Lees.
I can stand anyone cheat!!
ref
http://online.wsj.com/public/search/page/3_0466.html?KEYWORDS=Democracy%20in%20Singapore&mod=DNH_S
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/6/16/asia/14556136&sec=asia
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/192928?page=2
Matters of Chee's
12,000 hits
-
You can or you can't? Make up your mind.
P4P cheats it's ok, but not others?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
In the Lees v SDP and Chee in 2006 NKF law suit case,
have CSJ submitted defence to court?
Pl think before u answer.
The answer is'' NO''.
Chees,SDP and his lawyer Ravi did not submit defence.
Therefore,court granted Summary Judgement to Lees.
They gave up their chance .Full Stop.
Did they want court treat them fears or favours?
But now CSJ cheated WSJ and readers:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121522047871629771.html
This was Chees gave up the chance to cross exam Lees.
I can stand anyone cheat!!
ref
http://online.wsj.com/public/search/page/3_0466.html?KEYWORDS=Democracy%20in%20Singapore&mod=DNH_S
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/6/16/asia/14556136&sec=asia
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/192928?page=2
Matters of Chee's
12,000 hits
funny thing is, most of the time i think chee's lying/cheating except when you're the one telling me he's lying/cheating.
-
Like the way, according to you, Dr Chee cheated everyone in his book?
Dr Chee,where is this Prof of SEA Studies,Terence Harper
Dr Chee,where is this Prof of SEA Studies,Terence Harper last lionnoisy 34 698 yah yah yah, according to you, Dr Chee is cheating everyone and you are not.... as-snifing dog with a lion delusion
-
so who is cheating who now (- -)..........
i think i better cheat my dogs off his food .......
-
Have Chees or Ravi submitted any defence document
before the dead line?
The answer is NO.
If i am wrong,pl tell me the details.
-
Lionnoisy,this is why you are wrong...
Just go do a little search online and don't be lazy:
WHEN the death knell sounded on a 10-year-old law that imposes a total ban on political films two weeks ago, film-maker Martyn See cheered.
The move marked the biggest effort in 20 years by the Government to loosen its hold on political expression here, declared the 39-year-old.
As a mischievous tribute, he pulled together 100 films on local politics, compiling them on his blog a week after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his Aug 17 National Day Rally speech that an outright ban on political films was no longer sensible.
The 100 short clips - 'films' is too formal a term to describe them - are the work of assorted groups and individuals, most with a decidedly anti-establishment stance.
They include two by Mr See which did not make the censor's cut. One is on Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and the other on former political detainee Said Zahari.
He plans to re-submit them to the Board of Film Censors once the ban on political films is formally eased - likely early next year - just to test the new system.
He wants to do so because the prospective change comes with caveats: Films which are partisan or give a distorted and slanted impression will still be off-limits.
His own view is that there should be no caveats. 'If it is not sheer stupidity to continue enforcing bans on these films when they can be viewed at a click of a mouse, I don't know what is,' he wrote on his blog.
How did he come to be such a fighter against Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films?
Political awakening
ATTRIBUTE it to a second political awakening that came in the wake of the 2001 general election.
He had had a first awakening back in the mid-1990s, when a photocopy of a banned book came his way.
The book was To Catch A Tartar, written by former solicitor-general Francis Seow, describing his detention under the Internal Security Act in the late 1980s.
'My eyes were opened to the darker side of the PAP's history,' he says.
'I read it from cover to cover. I felt...frightened, depressed and angry at the same time.'
His hitherto placid political outlook changed then, but it was only later - after the November 2001 election - that he was really roused into action.
What caught his attention was Dr Chee Soon Juan heckling then prime minister Goh Chok Tong about an alleged loan to former Indonesian president Suharto.
'Chee Soon Juan got hammered very badly. I wondered, is this guy as bad as the media made him out to be? So I decided to check him out myself,' he says.
A few months later, in 2002, he asked to meet Dr Chee.
For the next two years, he 'interviewed' the SDP leader regularly, visited him at his home and his office, and observed him when he staged public protests - filming all the while.
He had reams of footage but no film, until Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2004.
Mr Lee's inauguration speech, promising the opening up of civil society, inspired him to compile his shots into a 28-minute film which he titled Singapore Rebel.
He submitted it for screening at a film festival. But the film never made it past the censors.
It was deemed 'party political', and banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.
He was questioned four times over 15 months by the police and even had his video camera seized.
'They dropped the investigation a couple of months after the 2006 general election. I guess they wanted to watch if I would participate in the election,' he says.
He never did. But he continued to produce politically incorrect films.
Singapore Rebel
MR SEE titled his directorial debut Singapore Rebel. Although about Dr Chee, it sums up Mr See himself - someone bent on capturing alternative politics on celluloid.
He began his film-making career nearly 20 years ago, right after national service, learning the ropes of video editing in production houses. Along the way, he became a freelance video editor, working for renowned local directors such as Mr Eric Khoo and Mr Jack Neo.
He spends 90 per cent of his time doing such work to 'pay the bills', but the remaining 10 per cent is now consumed by his passion - making films on local political issues.
While being questioned by the police over Singapore Rebel, he produced another film, on former political detainee Said Zahari. This was also banned.
His latest, on Dr Chee and the protests he staged during the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, however made the cut. Speakers' Cornered was given an NC-16 rating and screened at the Substation on July 26 this year.
Despite the overwhelmingly pro-opposition - especially pro-SDP - angles in his films, he insists he is not an opposition supporter or sympathiser.
He says: 'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
Asked why he bothers to submit his films for classification when he can upload them on YouTube, he deadpans that the law requires it.
The more compelling reason is that he wants to push the envelope in the area of political expression.
'Who better to do that than me,' he says, 'since I'm already over the OB markers. I want more film-makers who want to document the political scenes to emerge.'
In this, he has found a following of sorts.
Mr Ho Choon Hiong, 33, first heard about Mr See when Singapore Rebel was banned three years ago.
He was among a group of 12 film-makers who wrote to the Government then, asking for greater clarity as to what constituted a party political film.
The incident led to him meeting Mr See.
Their subsequent exchanges emboldened him to capture on celluloid assorted scenes of political activism in Singapore.
Unlike Mr See, he was introduced to politics early by his father, who used to be a student activist at Chinese High School in the 1960s.
Like Mr See, however, his political interest was stoked by the 2001 polls and Dr Chee.
After meeting Mr See, he produced a plethora of very short films, on topics ranging from the 2006 election to protests by Myanmar nationals in Singapore. He sent six to the film censors for classification in May.
'I have to take a few steps and hope to be undeterred more and more,' says the film studies graduate from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
'I want to put my own perception of truth out.'
So far, his 'films' have been ignored by the authorities.
A prolific activist
NOT so for Mr Seelan Palay, 24, another amateur film-maker.
He had his film, One Nation Under Lee, seized by officials from the Board of Film Censors as it was being screened in a hotel recently.
The reason: It had not been passed by the censors.
His first effort - detractors panned it as a slide show rather than a film - it portrayed Singapore as lacking in press and political freedom, and tightly controlled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Point out that One Nation Under Lee is decidedly one-sided - it takes potshots at the Government while hailing Dr Chee as a hero - and he insists he has no political agenda.
He isn't politicised by anyone either, he insists.
'I learnt everything from reading, out of personal interest,' says the activist.
CITIZEN JOURNALIST
'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
-- Film-maker Martyn See
He has been involved at various times with the Vegetarian Society, the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society, and the now defunct SG Human Rights Group.
Earlier this year he attended rallies by Hindu protesters in Kuala Lumpur, and upon his return to Singapore, decided to mount a one-man protest fast outside the Malaysian High Commission.
He also takes part in protest actions organised by the SDP occasionally.
He is not a troublemaker, he insists. He is just doing what he believes in.
Nothing to fear
WHAT keeps the trio going?
'Our conscience pricks us,' says Mr Ho. He sees it as his duty to document what he believes gets sidelined by the mainstream media.
The trio use the same counter when you point out that their version of 'truth' sometimes takes an extreme slant. Others have noted that it was the publicity over the banning of some of their films, rather than the quality of the films themselves, that made the public more keen to view them.
But they are not perturbed.
For Mr See, his mission is simple.
'I live by the Singapore Pledge. I live by the Constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, association and assembly,' he says.
And he aims to guard these freedoms by showing that there is nothing to fear.
The other two, less articulate about their aims, appear to go with the flow as acolytes of Mr See, enjoying the thrill of defiance every once in a while.
They are all drawn to Dr Chee, whom they see as championing freedom of expression and provoking the Government with his illegal public protests.
Still, they say, they have no intention of joining the SDP or any political party. Ironically, they fear being hemmed in by party discipline.
Mr Palay, for instance, will tell you that he supports the SDP's cause but has no wish to sign on as a member.
Have they made an impact on the political scene? They believe so, pointing to more local film-makers who remain anonymous but, like them, upload political-type films on YouTube.
They also claim some credit for the Government's decision to consider lifting the ban on political films.
It was, they say, the banning of Mr See's Singapore Rebel that sparked a debate on the relevance of the Films Act.
Future films
FOR now, the three men have film ideas that they hope will see the light of day.
Mr Palay wants to do a film on the unspoken rule limiting use of dialects in films.
Mr Ho is aiming to do documentaries on two women: Dr Chee's wife, and his own long-lost Malaysian nanny whom he is still trying to locate.
As for Mr See, he has two targets too. One is the reclusive former political detainee Chia Thye Poh. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
In the latter film, he wants to trace the People's Action Party's formation and rise to the pinnacle of power in Singapore.
Why do a film on the PAP when its story has been told so many times before? 'It is a compelling story,' he says.
So are they really rebels with a cause?
Says Mr See: 'There's definitely a purpose to what we're doing. I see it as lessening the climate of fear here.
'I want more film-makers like me to emerge, wanting to document the political scenes in Singapore.' -
such a long post... try summarizing it.
-
Everybody love to tell lies... cheat & lies is part of living should adapt with it.
-
LIONNOISY TRIED TO CHEAT SGFORUMS
BUT HE WAS EXPOSED
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
To "flame wars" and "phishing" we can now add "sock puppet." A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry.
When Lee Siegel began blogging for The New Republic, he found, as many others have, that Internet posters tend to be fairly outspoken — and a good number of the posters on the blog were harshly critical. An exception was ''sprezzatura,'' who regularly offered extravagant praise. After Mr. Siegel was criticized for his writing about Jon Stewart, host of ''The Daily Show,'' sprezzatura wrote: ''Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.'' A reader charged that sprezzatura was in fact Mr. Siegel, but sprezzatura denied it.
The reader turned out to be right. ...
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
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?
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
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
I cant believe there are so many killings
in the above links !!!
More excited than Holloywood movies!!
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Why did u check IP and English of forumers?
i just know my acct has been hijacked and u post it!!
It seems u are faster than me?Looks so strange!!
Looks like it is a cyber crime and /or frame up.
Hv anyone(u know who i mean) hacked into my e mails and computers ?
Do i have to hire armed guards to stay outside my
pigeon hole?
I am seeking helps from ISD,CIA,FBI,MI 5 and 6,
PRC Kong Ang, etc to check who hijack my acct
and make me appearing as ''makepeace'' after
i click submit.How safe in this forum??
I will buy you Ya Kun coffee if your info can lead to
catch the criminal,
Forums owners and mods are hereby notified my formal ,written and distressing complaints to cyber crimes!!
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
oh it is good.Then can help me saving time to see counsellors How to get rid of computers addicts!!bye
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
-
2222
I need to add more info how Dr Chee Soon Juan cheated WSJ learned editors and their readers.In his letter to the WSJ editor,Chee said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121522047871629771.html
The Lees obtained summary judgment from the courts despite our defense, in which we cited disputes of fact and law. In other words, there were triable issues. The summary judgment meant that we were found guilty without being given the chance to call witnesses and cross-examine the plaintiffs.
A.Did he want to imply that Summary Judgement is granted without trial?
Summary Judgement is granted with hearing or trail,open or closed door.
B.Who did steal his chance to call witness?Answer:Chees and his lawyer!!
In this case,Lees applied for Summary Judgement,after reading Chees defence.
The Judge hold the hearing in Chamber.But Chees and his learned lawyer
M Rave DID NOT attend!!Were they hold up by any car accidents?
Were they hold up by strangers on MRT or taxi?Chees and Ravi never mentioned
any things did happen to them on the day of hearing.
So,i assume they CHOSE NOT to attend the hearing.
If they did not attend on their own and free will,Chees and lawyer gave up
"the chance to call witnesses and cross-examine the plaintiffs."
(in Chee Soon Juan own words).No one deprived their chances!!
SINGAPORE: Chees defamed PM and MM, court finds
Lees awarded damages for defamation in party newsletter
Straits Times
Wednesday, September 13, 2006By Paul Jacob and Aaron Low
The High Court ruled yesterday that the Chee siblings defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in articles in their political party's newsletter.
The Lees were awarded damages -- to be decided at a later hearing -- along with an injunction preventing any repetition of their allegation and costs.
The ruling by Justice Belinda Ang was made at a closed-door hearing which Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan, his sister Siok Chin, and their lawyer M. Ravi did not attend.
Dr Chee again tried to have the proceedings adjourned, saying Mr Ravi was too ill to be present -- but did not produce a medical certificate attesting to his condition.
He said if the hearing continued, he would discharge Mr Ravi and find a new lawyer. But he left just after 11am before the ruling....
A summary judgment is sought when there are no disputes about the facts of the case, the other party has admitted certain facts, or there are previous judgments relevant to the case.
Mr Singh cited defamatory portions and argued why the Chees had no defence, even though they said they would show the assertions were true, were fair comment, or were written under qualified privilege.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=52840
@@@@@@@@@@@@
He did file a appeal on the ruling of summary judgement.
But good 7 months after the dead line.
Again,did Chees want court give them fears or favours?
No mention was made of the fact that Dr Chee had in fact filed an
appeal, seven months out of time. The Court of Appeal declined to
give leave for an extension of time to appeal and set out the details of
Dr Chee’s behaviour in Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic
Party [2007] SGCA 51.http://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/WSJAAGSubswithhyperlinks.pdf
1. Singapore may sue Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones
(News/Singapore)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121522047871629771.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The suit arising from NKF articles is as follows:
1.Chees did file their defence.Other CEC members of SDP apologised.
2.Chees and lawyer Ravi did not attend the closed door hearing
"seeking a summary judgment in the Lees' defamation suit against the Chees."
"A summary judgment is sought when there are no disputes about the facts of the case, the other party has admitted certain facts, or there are previous judgments relevant to the case."
references:
1.http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=45662
SINGAPORE: Six SDP leaders agree to settlement terms in defamation suit
Most of Singapore Democratic Party complies with a settlement while two still deny any responsibility for offending remarks
Straits Times
Tuesday, May 16, 2006By Sue-Ann Chia
But the SDP as a party, its chief, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and his sister, Miss Chee Siok Chin, stuck to their guns and last Wednesday, the Chee siblings filed their defence against the lawsuit, denying responsibility for any allegedly offending remarks.
But the fate of SDP is still hanging in the balance, as its defence is yet to be filed. The deadline is Thursday.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=46766
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=46967
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=47647
@@@@@@@@@@@
-
How did "Chee Soon Juan cheated the Wall Street Journal" ?
If the truth can be told, why were Singaporeans cheated of hearing more from the 5 day cross-examination that was agreed with CSJ and his sister at a pretrial hearing for LKY and LHL to take the witness box - when after the first day hearing, the entire session was shortened by almost three days, and the hours in court also shortened ?
Was the shortened number of days due to the embarrassing details that must be raised in a Public Hearing that will include the reputation of LKY and LHL being examined to determine their public standing in the eyes of Singaporeans - so as to determine the quantum of damages payable ?
Is rushed justice, fair justice ?
Power and Tenacity Collide in a Singapore Courtroom
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/world/asia/30singapore.html?_r=1
-
Singapore's Shame
Diane Francis, National Post Published: Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Singapore represents itself as a democracy with the rule of law and a good place to live and do business.
But Singapore is a bully and its strong-arm tactics against critics, domestic or foreign, is unrecognized by the rest of the world, thanks to its carefully crafted public relations strategy designed to show the city-state as a model of government, democracy, economic development and the rule of law.
“The frustrating thing is that people continue to see Singapore as a rules-based society. I want the international community to realize the abuses,” said opposition leader Dr. Chee Soon Juan in an exclusive telephone interview yesterday from his home in Singapore with the National Post. “Fortunately, International organizations are getting involved like Lawyers Rights Watch, the International Bar Association, the International Commission of Jurists. All have criticize Singapore.”
Dr. Chee should know. His saga since 1992 reads like the Book of Job and shows that the reality is the city-state of five million people is an autocracy whose leaders use dafamation lawsuits and other court techniques to harass Chee or any other democratic activists, the media or corporate entities which fall out of favor.
This Thursday, Dr. Chee, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, will be on trial for the eighth time in a handful of years. This time he is accused of the “crime” of holding a meeting with more than five persons without a permit. The Singapore constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, expression and assembly.
“Every time we applied for a permit we have been turned down and the minister said that he would never grant a permit,” said Dr. Chee.
His ordeal began after he joined the opposition party and criticized the cronyism and secrecy of the Singaporean government. Since then, lawsuits have bankrupted him personally, are about to bankrupt his political party, have sent him to jail because he is unable to pay fines anymore, have cost him his university position as a lecturer and denied him basic legal rights such as legal representation or the right to cross-examine or present a defense.
And every time he criticizes such unjust treatment he is sued for defamation, then fined huge amounts or sent to jail.
Singapore also muzzles the press. Local media is government-owned and foreigners have been harassed.
“International newspapers, the Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review, Time, the Economist, International Herald Tribune, Bloomberg have all been sued and/or prosecuted for making statements about these matters,” said Dr. Chee.
International effort underway
Fortunately, a team of lawyers, led by Canadian law firm Amsterdam & Peroff in Toronto, has been set up in order to help Dr. Chee defend himself in court and to embarrass Singapore before the world for its failure to uphold the rule of law. The team is headed by Bob Amsterdam (who defended Mikhail Khodorovsky and other high-profile Russians against the oppressive Putin regime), UK defamation expert Anthony Julius (who represented Lady Di) and American law professor William Burke-White.
"The Singaporean authorities are using the law to repress political rivals and as punishment,” said Amsterdam in a phone interview from his headquarters in London. "It's a myth that Singapore is a democracy, a complete myth.”
The team is going to help Dr. Chee represent himself in court and also intends to bring the injustice to the attention of the United Nations and others. They also intend to register the Singapore Democratic Party in their jurisdictions so that it may continue its work as an exiled entity.
The next ordeal
On Thursday, Dr. Chee will have to represent himself, with help from this team. The Singapore court will not give standing to a foreign lawyer and local lawyers have been frightened away from his case. There is no Legal Aid representation provided either. He knows he probably faces jail because he cannot pay any more fines.
“I survive financially by selling books. I peddle them on the street. I was trained in academia but after I joined the opposition in 1992 I was sacked and since then nobody will want to work with me. They are frightened of guilt by association,” he said.
He was fired by a person who was a Member of Parliament with the ruling party.
“When I said my sacking was politically motivated, he sued me for defamation. I went to court, lost and the court awarded damages of US$350,000. My wife and I sold our house, car and everything to pay this fine,” he said.
Another two defamation lawsuits resulted in US$400,000 in fines after Dr. Chee raised questions about Singapore’s secret financial support for the corrupt Suharto regime in Indonesia.
“The significance of those cases was we didn’t even go to trial. It was a summary judgment, decided by the judge in chambers without any right to cross examine,” he said.
“A third case in 2006 was a defamation lawsuit by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son, the current Prime Minister, over an article written in our party’s newspaper. Fines were huge [US$610,000] and the judgment was delivered in the judge’s chambers again.”
When Dr. Chee criticized this, the judge said this constituted contempt of court and jailed him this June for 12 days. And his failure to pay fines will also result in more contempt convictions and imprisonment. -
The noisy pussy has cheated participants in this Speaker's Corner yet again with his usual noisy and dishonest conduct.
Why has he intentionally behave in such misleading ways and confuse the issues that has already been well documented even in the Court proceedings - that are made by others who are determinedly more resourceful to get at the truth ?
Lee Kuan Yew vs The Singapore Democratic Party, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, et al.
Dr. Chee to the Court on a preliminary objection:
Your Honor, I appear in these proceedings under protest.
I understand these proceedings are concerned with the issue of the assessment of damages.
However these proceedings now are dependant on whether the judgment obtained against me in the earlier summary proceedings are in fact valid and sound.
I again raise the defense which I had raised in the earlier summary judgment proceedings, which is, that firstly the court had no lawful jurisdiction to find against me in summary judgment proceedings in a defamation case.
As your Honor is aware, since these proceedings were brought before Your Honor respecting the summary judgment, I had at all times, strenuously disputed all the allegations raised against me by the Plaintiff in his Statement of Claim.
This being so, there was clearly a triable issue and therefore summary proceedings, where witnesses are not available for cross examination was a patent misuse of the law.
In every Common Law jurisdiction, the rules governing summary proceedings are very clear.
Summary Judgment can only be issued in cases where there is no triable issue, thus making any trial a waste of judicial time.
This as you are aware was not the case.
I had strenuously disputed each and every allegation made against me by the Plaintiffs and my defense which I filed made it clear that I was denying all liability.
My defense had ample factual grounds to join issue with the Plaintiffs allegations and therefore clearly a triable issue was raised.
Section 5 of the Singapore Civil law Act makes it clear that the Law of England and Wales will be the basis of the civil law in Singapore; in other words Common Law prevails.
Since there was clearly a triable issue, it was wrong in law for Your Honor to have proceeded in summary proceedings, thereby denying me a right to cross examine my accusers and therefore making the judgment against me a sham and void in law.
Secondly, Your Honor is aware that the hearing for that summary judgment proceedings was itself conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice, in that, firstly it was conducted in the absence of my counsel who was taken ill and secondly, even I was not present during the proceedings in chambers.
This court was totally unreasonable and determined not to give my lawyer, M Ravi a chance to represent me.
Therefore Your Honor proceeding with the summary judgment in these circumstances was an egregious denial of natural justice.
Please refer to page 29, 30 and 31 of the Affidavit in Chief of the Plaintiff Lee Kuan Yew.
At page 29, para 70, it is admitted that my then counsel was seriously ill and physically unable to attend court.
Whereas any normal reasonable judge who would have given a reasonable time for the lawyer to produce a medical certificate, Your Honor was exceptionally and unusually opposed to offer any reasonable courtesy to a lawyer in these circumstances, by requiring him to produce a medical certificate that very afternoon!
Your determination not to provide any reasonable time for my lawyer who was clearly unwell shows bias and malice against me and a desire to favor the Plaintiffs.
Furthermore it is normal common courtesy at the Bar to take the word of a fellow member of the Bar if he claims to be ill.
This courtesy is offered in all civilized countries let alone common law jurisdictions which Your Honor was determined to deny.
In spite of the totally unreasonable position of Your Honor, I did manage with great difficulty to comply with Your Honor's unreasonable request by producing the required medical report that same afternoon.
Secondly, Your Honor not being a medical or dental practitioner was wrong in making a determination that very day that my lawyer was faking his illness and therefore must appear the very next day for trial.
I refer to Para 72 in page 30. Your Honor says " CSJ produced a note and a one day medical certificate (both from a dentist) for Mr. Ravi. Justice Ang found several discrepancies..........pericoronitis caused by poor oral hygiene in the area around the lower right wisdom tooth.............unfit for duty on Monday 11 September 2006.................pericoronitis which was a new development.......Davinder Singh counsel for LHL and LKY pointed out additional discrepancies.................the note was not in compliance of pt 2 Para 13...............the dentists note was in black ink whereas the date was in blue ink....................."
In Para 73 of page 30 of LKY's Affidavit it reads that Your Honor had fixed the hearing for 10 am the next day since the medical certificate was only for one day.
Even if M Ravi’s certificate was only for a day, it is customary for judges everywhere to give a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 2 weeks to fix another date for the continued hearing.
Therefore fixing the continued hearing the very next day showed a bias against me, almost a determination to make it as difficult as possible for me. Your Honor’s bias seemed very clear from your actions.
Firstly I submit that as Your Honor is not a qualified medical practitioner and neither a dental practitioner, you had no basis in law to make a judgment that my lawyer was not seriously ill and therefore under normal circumstances should have been given a reasonable amount of time to recuperate before required to attend court.
A reading of the record clearly gives the impression that Your Honor was determined not to give the common courtesy or the benefit of the doubt to my lawyer since he could in fact be seriously ill.
Your Honor's ruling to require my lawyer to come the very next day in the morning to court, less than even 24 hours, shows malice, ill will and a bias against me and favoritism for the Plaintiff.
In pages 31, 32 and 33 of Lee's said Affidavit, Your Honor goes on to justify why Your Honor proceeded in my absence but Your Honor’s attempt to do it is clearly without any merit and seen only as a judge who is in a great hurry to decide the case in favor of the Plaintiff.
In Paras 74, 75 and 76, the facts clearly show your Honor's bias and non compliance of legal principles.
Firstly, just because my lawyer’s medical certificate was for only one day, Your Honor is determined to assume that he is fit and well the very next day, which Your Honor knows to be not the normal case.
Humans just like any other living thing, need time to recover, especially since Your Honor is not a doctor and could not have known of the extent of my lawyer’s illness.
Furthermore, Your Honor makes an issue of my failure to attend the summary proceedings.
Your Honor should be aware that since Your Honor had already decided to proceed with the case without my lawyer present on that day, it is highly prejudicial to my case to defend my self being a lay person while the Plaintiff is being represented by Senior Counsel.
In these circumstances, it is patently unjust on Your Honor’s part to insist that I defend myself against a trained and experienced senior counsel without a lawyer.
Your Honor's pre-determined bias, malice and ill will against me is also shown by the fact that the Plaintiffs would have not been prejudiced in any way by Your Honor acceding to my request for a reasonable adjournment of not more than 2 weeks to enable either my lawyer to recover or for me to obtain alternative counsel.
Even if the case had been delayed for some time earlier, still, the Plaintiffs would have suffered no prejudice and judicial time would not have been wasted by allowing the short adjournment.
Had I not done anything in the mealtime, Your Honor would have been well within your rights to find against me.
However in Your Honor's determination to find in favor of the Minister Mentor and the Prime Minister of Singapore, Your Honor failed to provide that very short and reasonable time for either my lawyer to get better or for me to find another counsel in his stead, by reason of which I was seriously prejudiced.
Therefore your honor would see, by any yardstick that my refusal to take part in those proceedings was not only the right thing to do; it was also the legally correct position to take.
I was preserving my right to challenge the courts judgment by my refusing to attend since, had I attended without counsel, my attendance in these proceedings may be construed as a waiver of my right to counsel during the proceedings, thereby preventing me from raising it in any appeal against Your Honor’s decision.
Moreover it is clear from the minutes of the Summary Proceedings that Your Honor while in Chambers with Davinder Singh counsel for the Plaintiffs insulted my honesty and integrity called me dishonest and other such epithets.
I am in possession of those offending minutes which leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that Your Honor has already decided even before the proceedings ever started that you were going to decide in favor of the Plaintiffs.
I therefore make the following preliminary objections at this stage.
Even though these proceedings are meant only to decide on the quantum of damages, Your Honor still has the power at this stage of the case to take judicial notice of the blatant abuse of the law before Your Honor at the summary judgment proceedings and therefore Sua Sponte, under Your Honor's inherent jurisdiction, you have the power to set aside the earlier summary judgment and give me leave to defend this libel action against me.
I therefore make this formal request that the Summary Judgment be set aside and that I be given leave to defend.
If Your Honor is not prepared to set aside the Summary Judgment; since Your Honor was the one that heard the summary judgment against me which I have publicly protested to be unjust and unfair and accused Your Honor of bias and misuse of the law; the correct thing for Your Honor to do is to recuse yourself and let another judge hear these proceedings.
As the legal aphorism correctly states: Justice must not only be done but must be patently seen to be done. In this case justice was not at all done and was not seen to be done. -
Dr. Chee to the Court:
Almost the entire contents of Lee's Affidavit should be struck off as frivolous vexatious and an abuse of the court since almost all of it or a substantial part of it refers to accusations against me that I had tried to delay these proceedings.
Whether there was delay or not has no relevance to these proceedings.
These proceedings before us are to decide on one thing and one thing alone, namely the quantum of damages that the Plaintiffs are entitled to; since liability has already been decided against me in the Summary proceedings.
The matters relevant to these proceedings are only whether the Plaintiff is worthy or not worthy of respect; and if in fact he is respected, to what extent people respect him as a leader or even as a human being.
Therefore as you are aware, if the Plaintiffs is worthy of great respect in the eyes of the public, then he is entitled to greater damages whereas if he has only little respect in the eyes of the public, then the damages awarded would be less.
In extreme cases, where the Plaintiff is seen as a rascal, then he should not be awarded any damages at all and even if so awarded, only one Singapore dollar as nominal damages..
Since we are agreed that that these proceedings are for the purposes of deciding the quantum of damages, I humbly submit that the numerous pages, in fact a vast portion of the affidavit is applied in accusing me of trying to delay the courts proceedings.
Pages 25 to 40, paragraphs 53 to 98 should be struck off as totally irrelevant to these proceedings and as an abuse of the process of this court since it has nothing to do with the Plaintiffs reputation and instead unjustly accuses me of delay.
The Plaintiffs in these paragraphs, calling it 1st attempt to delay to 7th attempt at delay in sequential order is only doing nothing more than trying to unfairly scandalize my attempts to seek justice before this court.
In any case regardless of how many times the case was adjourned in the past by me, which I deny; it in no way either enhances or diminishes the reputation of the Plaintiffs which is the issue in these proceedings.
I therefore ask that these said paragraphs be struck off the record and that I be awarded costs of the action. -
Cross Examination of Lee Kuan Yew
The general rule is first to deal with the allegations in the pleadings, namely Plaintiffs Statement of Claim and Dr. Chee’s defense. Dr. Chee has to show that Lee is without any respect in the community, that people consider him no better than a rascal and someone who will shamelessly use crooked means to amass wealth.
In the first instance, Dr. Chee’s attack on Lee’s character should be based on the pleadings. For instance if he says he was the Prime Minister of Singapore, to show that he got the position by dishonest means.
In this case, since Lee’s position is that the people would believe that just as the NKF, Lee is corrupt, prove that Lee in fact had control over NKF and since he did nothing to stop the corruption there, he was clearly complicit in it. Moreover his government is no different from NKF since there is no accountability and the newspapers are state controlled and a mouthpiece for propaganda.
Other than specifically trying to disprove Lee’s claim of respectability, defamation law permits a defendant to raise even extraneous evidence of lack of reputation.
Therefore Lee’s rigging elections to remain ion power, his misuse of the law to eliminate opposition politicians, his purchasing Jade condominium at a discounted price, his paying himself $3.7 million, his refusal to permit transparency for Tumasek and GIC are all matters that you can validly go into.
In other words, once a person sues another for defamation, his entire life including everything private and public is fair game to be attacked. Lee’s lawyer cannot raise objections as to relevancy since his entire life can be exposed.
As I do not have the benefit of the Statement of Claim and Dr. Chee’s defense, I am writing with the benefit of only Lee’s Affidavit in Chief.
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In page 4, Para 8 of your Affidavit you claim that you were the first prime minister of Singapore in 1959, a post you held until 1990. Are you relying on that fact as a basis for claiming a reputation?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is it not true that throughout those years, you retained power by unjust means, such as falsely imprisoning your opponents such as Lim Chin Siong for many years on false charges?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is it not true that the average ordinary citizen of Singapore looks upon you as a dictator having retained power by unjust means in effect by abusing the law by bankrupting and imprisoning your opponents?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In Pages 6 and 7 of your Affidavit, you refer to the NKF saga with the criminal implication of Mr. TT Durai. Let me ask you, is not TT Durai a member of the Peoples Action Party? Are you denying that it is common knowledge among Singaporeans that he is a member of your party, just as every other appointment in public or private office is?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Are you willing to admit that the public assume even today that you are aware of the goings on in NKF because you are involved in all aspects of the running of the country including the charity?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you not admit that it is commonly perceived that you either knew or you condoned the corrupt activities of the NKF since you have your tentacles all over the island? Therefore do you not admit that people may justifiably think, just like the NKF, the Singapore government too may be corrupt, thereby tarnishing your reputation?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Please refer to pages 8 and 9 of your Affidavit, Para 20 with reference to the words of the SDP paper the New Democrat “It is about the idea that the political elite must be paid top dollar no matter how obscene those amounts are and regardless of who suffers as a result of it”.
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you not admit that those words were true?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you not admit that TT Durai was paid X hundred thousand dollars and X thousand dollars of perks etc?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
How much do your earn? I understand it is $3.7 million? Do you take any more money in addition to this? How much? Do you not admit that your income is obscene? Your son’s income is obscene? All your relatives take obscene salaries?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you not admit that you do not have the consent of Singaporeans to pay yourself this much?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is not what I said in that paragraph “ It is about a system engineered over the decades by the PAP that ensures that it and it only has access to public information and by fiat decides what is allowed and what is not” true?
Is it not true that people have no access to any independent opinion other than the Internet; that you own and censor all newspapers in Singapore? Are you therefore not seen as a dictator rather than a democratic leader of country?
Do you not admit that people fear you and are unable to question whether or not you commit fraud embezzle and criminal breach of trust?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is not the words “Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system, It is instead a product of it” entirely true, since just as how the government is run without any transparency, so was the NKF run, entirely in secret with no transparency.
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is not my comparison of the NKF and your running of the GIC, CPF and all institutions as secretive as how the NKF was run; in secret.
Do you not admit that the public do not know how the CPF is run, how much money there is in it, how much money is in GIC as in every public organization.
Since the lack of transparency is so striking, is it not reasonable to assume that just as TT Durai, you too have been stealing public moneys in addition to the $3.7 million that you pay yourself?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In the same paragraph, are not my statements that there is no transparency as regards GIC headed by you, HDB and CPF all entirely true, as no one really knows what is going on with the books of these organizations?
Since they are public institutions, are not the people entitled to know?
By keeping these things secret, are not the majority of Singaporeans entitled to assume that you are stealing the monies in them?
Therefore are not reasonably minded people entitled to assume that you are in fact a thief?
And so are your entire family members whom you have placed in positions of authority?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
As regards defamation suits, are you not world famous for using defamation actions to bankrupt your opponents?
Are you not doing the same now in these proceedings?
Do you not admit that there is not a single defamation case that you have won which has any merit?
Do you admit that it is generally perceived in Singapore as well as the whole world that the Singapore judiciary is beholden to you and do your bidding by eliminating your opponents in return for huge mind boggling salaries?
Do you not admit that by your actions the integrity of the Singapore judiciary has been comprised and this is common knowledge?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you deny that the similarities between NKF and your government are in fact striking?
Power concentrated in one man, yourself?
You make sure that no one can challenge your authority by defamation actions?
By banning protests? Introducing GRCs?
In these circumstances, is it not reasonable for Singaporeans to think that just like TT Durai, you too could possibly be a thief, stealing the money of Singaporeans because if they question you, you will sue them?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In page 10 of your Affidavit, do you not admit that with the control of the press, you can trumpet your so called successes and hide your failures; so that there is no way that anyone can ever know whether corruption and criminality goes on behind the closed doors?
In these circumstances, are not the people entitled to assume that corruption is going on, because if you are not corrupted, why then do you fear transparency and a free press?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
With regards to page 11, reference the CPF protest; is not the protest entirely within the rights of Singapore citizens which permit freedom of speech and assembly under the Constitution?
And in any case are not the questions raised by the protestors entirely true, since National reserves are not transparent, HDB and GIC do not provide any figures of the monies in them, are not the words “be transparent now” entirely legitimate since there is no transparency, and NKF CPF reference is true, since just like NKF, CPF refuses to publish any figures?
And principally because you refuse to publish figures, are not people entitled to assume that you and your family are stealing, just as TT Durai did?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In page 17, with respect to the judgment of VK Rajah in relation to the protestors court action, is it not true that the judge was entirely wrong in his judgment, since Singaporeans have a legitimate right to peaceful protest under the Constitution and by your questioning this right, should not Singaporeans assume that you are doing nothing more than silencing dissent?
Do you not agree that the average Singaporean believes that every judge including the Judge in this court Belinda Ang as well as every other judge in Singapore including VK Rajah was acting at your behest and obliged to do your bidding by deciding cases in your favor regardless of its merits?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Am I not entitled to raise the NKF issue as part of the elections of 2006 since the NKF is an organization under the control of your government?
In fact, do you not agree that in any other respectable democracy, the government would have resigned and admitted responsibility of the wrong doing in the NKF?
But instead of doing that, you are instead suing anyone who criticizes that organization or your government?
By these numerous court actions that you launch, is not a reasonable person entitled to assume that you may be a thief and trying to hide your wrongdoing by these court cases?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In page 21 and 22, when Ministers Khaw and Lim in fact praise the NKF after the discovery of the wrongdoing instead of condemning it, surely the public is entitled to assume that there is something fishy going on and that perhaps you as well as Khaw and Lim are all corrupt?
Are not the public entitled to assume that?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
From pages 25 to 41, you have devoted it entirely to the progress of these proceedings and the continuances that were obtained for trial preparation.
What is the point of so much reference to it?
Do you not realize that no legitimate court would give exemplary damages against anyone just because they needed time for trial preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
In Para 100 page 41, you state that I have a deep seated hatred of you because, inter alia, you had called me a liar and a cheat.
Will you admit that it is not surprising that you feel that way because you perceive me as a threat?
Will you admit that it is only you and your government that has such an opinion of me?
In fact will you not agree that all true democracies in the world have an opinion of me which is just the opposite?
Here refer to the various commendations and awards and accolades of appreciation and respect showered on Dr. Chee by the rest of the world as an honest decent man, highly determined to bring justice for Singaporeans.
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is it not true that in relation to the NKF, just as Singaporeans had no way of knowing whether there were financial misappropriations going on, with Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore government similarly, the public have no way of knowing whether you are siphoning off the peoples money?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Is it not true that you commenced action against me and the SDP just before the 2006 elections during the campaign?
Is it not reasonable for the ordinary man to assume that you did it in order to intimidate voters away from the SDP and to distract us from concentrating on elections?
Is this not what the ordinary man on the street will think?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Do you not agree that the injunction that you obtained stopping us from referring to the NKF during the election rallies of 2006 was an attempt to silence us from exposing the truth about the NKF and had we done so, it would have badly hurt your chances at the elections?
Would not people think of you as a coward using unfair means to win elections?
Dr. Chee to Lee Kuan Yew:
Are you aware that Singaporeans have the benefit of the Internet?
Are you aware that overwhelmingly both within and without Singapore you are seen as a bully willing to tolerate not even the slightest criticism by harassment intimidation false criminal charges and defamation actions?
Therefore do you not accept the fact that even if you are corrupt no one will know because no one can find out?
Do you not consider the salary you take of $3.7 million a year and several more millions both admitted and not admitted are seen as nothing less than corruption, plain and simple?
Here show the voluminous Internet articles and letters all calling this man a thief and a crook.
Here Dr. Chee should throw the whole kitchen sink at Lee Kuan Yew by producing every shred of document both in Singapore and the world which refers to him as a tyrant and a bully and a cheat. Lee’s reputation is in issue and therefore anything that you can find as to his bad character should be thrown at him. If the Judge were to object, then state your protest.
Dr. Chee to Judge:
Your Honor knows that this hearing is to decide the quantum of damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff.
Your Honor also knows that this entire exercise is one in futility since I have already been bankrupted and I am unable to pay.
Even if Your Honor were to award a trillion dollars against me, it will make no difference.
If indeed these proceedings are commenced by the Plaintiffs to recover monetary damages, I doubt very much if they will get a penny.
Indeed I am sure that the purpose of these proceedings is not for money but to try to silence me from further criticism.
I would like to tell this court as Your Honor is yourself aware that both you and the entire population of Singapore and indeed the whole world knows that this Plaintiff remains in power by silencing the opposition by abusing the law.
Your Honor knows that this is one reason why the educated and capable in Singapore continue to leave the country in droves and Singapore is losing its best people.
One thing both you and the Plaintiff can be certain is this.
I refuse to be silenced in my work of exposing this totalitarian regime and will continue to strive to bring democracy to this country.
Your Honor can decide whatever Your Honor wants to do. -
the tug of war between different sections of sgforums members seems never ending. However, i feel that PAP party would continue to win Singaporeans' votes because in Singapore, we remain a proud people and PAP has become a traditional / political methodology to arm Singaporeans with this pride.
Hence, LHL would win more than 70% votes in the next elections.
I have seen different types of Singaporeans. There are indeed a good number of them who will take advantage of any liberty given to them such as those who stormed their own international airport in Bangkok. A good number of them who are utterly self interest and would "sell" their country without conscience. A good number of them who will not give way to you on the highway. Whether we like it or not, PAP scholars and ministers are a better choice.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
LIONNOISY TRIED TO CHEAT SGFORUMS
BUT HE WAS EXPOSED
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
Haha, I can't believe someone could merge the comic and detective work together.
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:
I have seen different types of Singaporeans. There are indeed a good number of them who will take advantage of any liberty given to them such as those who stormed their own international airport in Bangkok. A good number of them who are utterly self interest and would "sell" their country without conscience. A good number of them who will not give way to you on the highway. Whether we like it or not, PAP scholars and ministers are a better choice.
Or maybe its because the PAP has such a stranglehold on information that most of the people in Singapore CANT HELP but think they're doing such a good job running things.
-
There is also a lack of criticism and attacks against PAP regime in the mainstream media.
So people also are not very aware of the negative aspects of PAP regime.
The impressive is thus created that PAP is the only choice.
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:
the tug of war between different sections of sgforums members seems never ending. However, i feel that PAP party would continue to win Singaporeans' votes because in Singapore, we remain a proud people and PAP has become a traditional / political methodology to arm Singaporeans with this pride.
Hence, LHL would win more than 70% votes in the next elections.
I have seen different types of Singaporeans. There are indeed a good number of them who will take advantage of any liberty given to them such as those who stormed their own international airport in Bangkok. A good number of them who are utterly self interest and would "sell" their country without conscience. A good number of them who will not give way to you on the highway. Whether we like it or not, PAP scholars and ministers are a better choice.
Should we find your views to be contradictory when you state that Singaporeans remain a proud people - with 70% votes given to LHL - but at the same time, you will believe that a good number of Singaporeans will be take advantage of any liberty given to PROUD Singaporeans ?
Why will the PROUD Singaporeans who voted for LHL behave utterly in self-interest, and "sell" their country without conscience ?
Should we be surprised that your PROUD Singaporeans are too proud to give way to you on the highway ?
For those with myopic vision and uninspired mind, the PAP scholars and ministers are obviously better choice in Government despite their consumate abilities to make immature, reckless and irrational remarks that include:-
"Unlike the USA where funds can be released to boost consumer spending to jump start the economy from a recession, Singapore is too small and the economy too open and such a policy will result in the outflow of money to other countries" - spoken by PAP Scholar LHL.
He must have forgotten that the USA is the biggest market for the World, and the US consumers are the world biggest user of all consumer products and services from China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and all the other emerging economies.
"With the evening ERP in place, less traffic jams will result in higher turnover of business in Chinatown" - Communications Minister RL.
Was it not a fact that the ERP had to be modified as business was so badly affected that some had to close ?
"Removing petrol tax is a subsidy to Singaporeans" - Minister MBT.
Singapore is the only place in the planet that tax removal becomes a subsidy.
"You marry a non-graduate, then you are going to worry if your son or daughter is going to make it to the university." - MM LKY
Is he embarrassed of his own roots - a salesman for a father, and a housewife for a mother ? Perhaps his creation was from a laboratory dish ? Have we not heard and read enough of LKY’s eugenics in Singapore ?
"Spend more money or Singapore will go into a recession" - SM GCT
Without Singaporean spending more, will there be enough GST collections to buy him the quality peanuts that he and his wife need ?
"Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the Government will take care of all security matters" - MM LKY on MSK escape, 5 April 2005, ST
Despite collecting the million dollar annual wage package PLUS his pension - all paid for by Singaporean Tax Payers, are Singaporeans not entitled to such a belief ?
"First, the CPI measures average changes in prices across all households. Whether there is an increase in the Cost of Living for a particular household depends on that household's spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the Cost of Living despite a rise in CPI" - LHK, 14 Nov 2007, ST
Can cheaper products exist when the CPI indicate increase across the board ?
With products costs dependent on the primary factors of business such as rent, utilities, fuel, transportation, taxes - do cheap products exist in a situation where the CPI indicate increases ?
"It is not the Government's responsibility to look for jobs for Singaporeans" - PM LHL, November 2005, ST
"If more Opposition get elected into Parliament, I will have to spend more time to fix them" - PM LHL, Singapore Election 2006.
-
i do not trust the integrity of a good number of Singaporeans. Even 20% of the citizens are selfish would be enough to create havoc when they are given the liberty.
as the saying goes, "The market is always right". Judging by the stability and strength of the Singapore dollars during this global financial crisis, the market is telling us that Singapore is strong in economic as well as financial fundamentals. Since the market is always right, that would imply those who are always on the opposite side of the market is always wrong, those who like to sing the tune that Singapore has a bleak future due to blah blah blah are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:
i do not trust the integrity of a good number of Singaporeans. Even 20% of the citizens are selfish would be enough to create havoc when they are given the liberty.
as the saying goes, "The market is always right". Judging by the stability and strength of the Singapore dollars during this global financial crisis, the market is telling us that Singapore is strong in economic as well as financial fundamentals. Since the market is always right, that would imply those who are always on the opposite side of the market is always wrong, those who like to sing the tune that Singapore has a bleak future due to blah blah blah are wrong.
"The market is always right"? You are such a delusional....
-
The market is right in the sense it reflects the currently pricing.
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:
i do not trust the integrity of a good number of Singaporeans. Even 20% of the citizens are selfish would be enough to create havoc when they are given the liberty.
as the saying goes, "The market is always right". Judging by the stability and strength of the Singapore dollars during this global financial crisis, the market is telling us that Singapore is strong in economic as well as financial fundamentals. Since the market is always right, that would imply those who are always on the opposite side of the market is always wrong, those who like to sing the tune that Singapore has a bleak future due to blah blah blah are wrong.
You are right
The market is controlled by the forces of the economy. this is not true if you only consider a few country, government intervention can skew the market quite badly. but if you consider it glocbally, with roughly two hundred countries, you will need a damn powerful country, or be delusional to think that the market does not reflect reality.
