Singapore attorney general to sue Wall Street Journal Asia
-
Originally posted by likedatosocan:
-
Democracy in Singapore
June 26, 2008; Page A14Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore can rightly be proud of many achievements, but full democracy is not one of them. The city-state he founded in 1965 and led as Prime Minister until 1990 is economically prosperous and its citizens enjoy a range of freedoms. Political dissent is not among them.
![[Lee Kuan Yew]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GH018_Kuan_Y_20051108133649.gif)
Which makes a recent David vs. Goliath exchange between one of the country's few opposition politicians and Mr. Lee worth noting. The dialogue took place in a courtroom and is therefore privileged – which means we can report on it without risking a lawsuit, which Mr. Lee often files against critics. Audio files are available on the Singapore Democratic Party's Web site, and a partial transcript is available at Singapore Rebel, an independent blog.
The setting was a hearing to assess damages against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the Chees lost a defamation suit brought by Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article they published in their party newsletter that was interpreted by the court to imply corruption on the part of the government. In last month's hearing, the elder Mr. Lee, who holds the title of Minister Mentor, was cross-examined by Mr. Chee, who was representing himself.
Mr. Chee is no orator, and on one level the dissident was no match for the eloquent Mr. Lee. But when the subject turned to the moral underpinnings of democracy – freedoms of speech, assembly and association – the debate went game, set and match to Mr. Chee.
Mr. Chee set out his philosophy while questioning Mr. Lee: "What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr. Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on, but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy – that is going to last for all eternity."
Mr. Lee didn't respond directly to those assertions, choosing instead to cite the International Bar Association's decision to "honor" Singapore by holding its annual conference there last year and noted a letter from the association's president saying "how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary."
Elsewhere in the hearing, Mr. Lee defended his string of defamation suits against opposition politicians and the press: "They know me by now," Mr. Lee said, referring to the people of Singapore, "that if anybody impugns the integrity of the government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue."
He went on: "There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked." Mr. Lee has never lost a libel suit. He and his son are currently suing the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of this newspaper, and its editor, Hugo Restall.
Our reading is that the Minister Mentor sounded more than a tad defensive – no less so than in his characterization of Mr. Chee, who has been bankrupted as a result of lawsuits by Mr. Lee and other politicians. He called Mr. Chee, a "liar, a cheat and altogether an unscrupulous man." Not to mention "a near-psychopath." Mr. Chee, for his part, referred to Mr. Lee as a "pitiable figure."
It's hard to know what Singaporeans make of all this. Mr. Lee is widely revered as the father of their country, and Mr. Chee is often scorned for his aggressive tactics. But at least, thanks to the Internet, they are able to read the exchange and make up their own minds.
So, too, in the case of Gopalan Nair, which is making its way through the courts now. Mr. Nair is a former Workers' Party candidate. He is now a U.S. citizen and online advocate for media freedom in Singapore. He traveled to the city-state to attend Mr. Chee's hearing last month and recorded his thoughts on his blog, where he expressed his contempt for the court proceedings and challenged Mr. Lee to sue him.
On May 31, he was arrested and interrogated. On June 2, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang, who presided over the Chee hearing, by email. He was released on June 5, six days after his initial arrest, and charged on June 12 with insulting another judge in a separate, 2006 email. Last week, the court changed the first charge and specified that the offending remarks about Judge Ang were made on a blog, not by email.
Mr. Nair's case is scheduled to go to court in mid-July. Meanwhile, Mr. Chee was just released from jail, where he served 11 days for "scandalizing" the court during his questioning of Mr. Lee. His sister served 10 days. The court has yet to set the amount of monetary damages in the defamation case. When it does, we'll know the price of political dissent these days in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
-
Lee Kuan Yew wants to encourage youth to think about Singapore's future.
But when people talk politics, criticise him, he want to fucking sue.
People scared already, don't talk politics.
Become apathetic and ignorant, then fucking immigrant.
So what the fuck does Lee Kuan Yew want?
Does he want to sue or encourage people to care about Singapore political affairs?
What does the old fucker want?
I am in the dark.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Lee Kuan Yew wants to encourage youth to think about Singapore's future.
But when people talk politics, criticise him, he want to fucking sue.
People scared already, don't talk politics.
Become apathetic and ignorant, then fucking immigrant.
So what the fuck does Lee Kuan Yew want?
Does he want to sue or encourage people to care about Singapore political affairs?
What does the old fucker want?
I am in the dark.
He doesn't want to be another TT Durai that is for sure even though compared to him, TT took only peanut amounts of public money... so he is hard at work selling his propaganda and suing people that criticises him.
-
If old man Lee really wanted to show how independent our judicial system is, he should let another democratic country's judicial system decide. If someone makes accusation against you, how credible is it if you refute the claim yourself? Putting the case through a judicial process which is ultimately determined by you bears no credence to faith of independence in the judicial system.
-
Even the Court of Appeal of Ontario believes that there was evidence to judicial bias relating to political cases.
[3] The respondent’s position was accurately summarized in the application judge’s reasons as follows:
While Oakwell acknowledges that Enernorth has tendered some evidence relating to possible government interference in trials, all of that evidence applies only to political cases. The case at bar is a commercial case. There is no evidence that Singapore courts are biased when deciding a commercial case between private parties.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2006/june/C43898.htm
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Even the Court of Appeal of Ontario believes that there was evidence to judicial bias relating to political cases.
[3] The respondent’s position was accurately summarized in the application judge’s reasons as follows:
While Oakwell acknowledges that Enernorth has tendered some evidence relating to possible government interference in trials, all of that evidence applies only to political cases. The case at bar is a commercial case. There is no evidence that Singapore courts are biased when deciding a commercial case between private parties.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2006/june/C43898.htm
"all of that evidence applies only to political cases"
says it all doesn't it?
Despot run country, despicable.
-
Lee had his case thrown out of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice when he tried to sue Devan Nair for defamation due to articles printed in Globe and Mail. He must have suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of an impartial justice system.
Lee v. Globe and Mail, 2001 CanLII 28035 (ON S.C.)
Ontario Supreme Court
Lee v. Globe and Mail,
Date: 2001-01-30
Lee
and
The Globe and Mail et al.
Superior Court of Justice, Swinton J. January 30, 2001
Howard W. Winkler and Odette S. Soriano, for plaintiff/moving party.
Patricia D.S. Jackson and Peter R. Balasubramaniam, for defendants/responding parties The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Margaret Wente and Marcus Gee.
Sean Dewart, for defendant Nair.
[1] SWINTON J.:—The plaintiff, Lee Kuan Yew, has brought a motion to strike paras. 6(p), 6(q) and 7 of the Statement of Defence of The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Margaret Wente and Marcus Gee (the “Thomson defendants”) in this libel action.
[2] The action was brought as a result of an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 29, 1999, reporting an interview with the defendant Devan Nair, who was the President of the Republic of Singapore from October 1981 to March 1985. The plaintiff Lee Kuan Yew was the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore from August 1965 to November 1990, and he is now the Senior Minister for the Republic of Singapore. According to the article, Mr. Nair, now a resident of Canada, decided to break his silence and to speak out on the continuing suppression of legitimate dissent in Singapore, drawing on his personal experience.
[3] In the course of the interview, Mr. Nair made certain statements which are alleged to be defamatory. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Statement of Claim are important to the determination of this motion:
8. On or about the 29th day of March, 1999 the Defendants falsely and maliciously published the following words on page A12 of The Globe in an article entitled Singapore Sage, which are defamatory of the Plaintiff personally and in the way of his profession as a politician:
Singapore Sage
(1) Then, in 1985 came a shocking break. Mr. Lee told Singapore’s parliament that Mr. Nair had resigned because he was an alcoholic, a charge Mr. Nair now calls a baseless slur.
(2) But before he could speak out, Mr. Nair found himself at the centre of a rumour‑mongering campaign that labelled him a drinker and a womanizer. He says he was neither, and he suspects that Mr. Lee had government doctors slip him hallucinatory drugs to make him appear befuddled. “Lee Kuan Yew decided: This man is going to be a threat, so I’d better begin a total demolishment of his character. He’s very good at that.”
9. The Plaintiff pleads that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean the following:
(1) The plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations that Mr. Nair was an alcoholic for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(2) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations concerning alcohol for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(3) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations that Mr. Nair was a womanizer for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(4) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, maliciously directed government doctors to slip Mr. Nair hallucinatory drugs in order to make him appear to be befuddled as part of a scheme to destroy his good character.
[4] Mr. Nair has yet to file a Statement of Defence. However, in their Statement of Defence, the Thomson defendants have pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
...............................................................
Conclusion
[23] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed. If the parties wish to make submissions with respect to costs, they may do so in writing or make an appointment with my secretary.
Motion dismissed.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2001/2001canlii28035/2001canlii28035.html
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
All these damages awarded were meted out by Singapore judges in Singapore courts, which was already tainted with accusations of judicial bias.
If our leaders want to show the world how impartial our courts are, they should take these issues to another impartial world court.
Strange logic this be, if you accuse someone (Mr. A) that he is a liar, Mr. A brings a legal suit against you to which he is also the judge.
How impartial can such a system be?
The plantiff is both the judge, jury and executioner.
If the case were to be put on trial here, I would suggest Wall Street Journal negotiate for an out of court settlement and a letter of apology.
well.... DIY is always cheaper
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Lee had his case thrown out of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice when he tried to sue Devan Nair for defamation due to articles printed in Globe and Mail. He must have suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of an impartial justice system.
Lee v. Globe and Mail, 2001 CanLII 28035 (ON S.C.)
Ontario Supreme Court
Lee v. Globe and Mail,
Date: 2001-01-30
Lee
and
The Globe and Mail et al.
Superior Court of Justice, Swinton J. January 30, 2001
Howard W. Winkler and Odette S. Soriano, for plaintiff/moving party.
Patricia D.S. Jackson and Peter R. Balasubramaniam, for defendants/responding parties The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Margaret Wente and Marcus Gee.
Sean Dewart, for defendant Nair.
[1] SWINTON J.:—The plaintiff, Lee Kuan Yew, has brought a motion to strike paras. 6(p), 6(q) and 7 of the Statement of Defence of The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Margaret Wente and Marcus Gee (the “Thomson defendants”) in this libel action.
[2] The action was brought as a result of an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 29, 1999, reporting an interview with the defendant Devan Nair, who was the President of the Republic of Singapore from October 1981 to March 1985. The plaintiff Lee Kuan Yew was the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore from August 1965 to November 1990, and he is now the Senior Minister for the Republic of Singapore. According to the article, Mr. Nair, now a resident of Canada, decided to break his silence and to speak out on the continuing suppression of legitimate dissent in Singapore, drawing on his personal experience.
[3] In the course of the interview, Mr. Nair made certain statements which are alleged to be defamatory. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Statement of Claim are important to the determination of this motion:
8. On or about the 29th day of March, 1999 the Defendants falsely and maliciously published the following words on page A12 of The Globe in an article entitled Singapore Sage, which are defamatory of the Plaintiff personally and in the way of his profession as a politician:
Singapore Sage
(1) Then, in 1985 came a shocking break. Mr. Lee told Singapore’s parliament that Mr. Nair had resigned because he was an alcoholic, a charge Mr. Nair now calls a baseless slur.
(2) But before he could speak out, Mr. Nair found himself at the centre of a rumour‑mongering campaign that labelled him a drinker and a womanizer. He says he was neither, and he suspects that Mr. Lee had government doctors slip him hallucinatory drugs to make him appear befuddled. “Lee Kuan Yew decided: This man is going to be a threat, so I’d better begin a total demolishment of his character. He’s very good at that.”
9. The Plaintiff pleads that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean the following:
(1) The plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations that Mr. Nair was an alcoholic for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(2) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations concerning alcohol for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(3) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, invented false allegations that Mr. Nair was a womanizer for the purpose of destroying Mr. Nair’s good character;
(4) The Plaintiff, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, maliciously directed government doctors to slip Mr. Nair hallucinatory drugs in order to make him appear to be befuddled as part of a scheme to destroy his good character.
[4] Mr. Nair has yet to file a Statement of Defence. However, in their Statement of Defence, the Thomson defendants have pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
...............................................................
Conclusion
[23] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed. If the parties wish to make submissions with respect to costs, they may do so in writing or make an appointment with my secretary.
Motion dismissed.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2001/2001canlii28035/2001canlii28035.html
The despot sells his propaganda and his dogs repeat them but only silliporeans believe anything they say.
They are not subjected to his "social engineering" in Canada. To them he is no better than TT Durai for taking such massive amounts of public money for his own pocket.