Singapore Democrats

Awesome Words

I would rather have free a press and no government, than a government and no free press.

Thomas Jefferson

Your SDP Forum

forum-sepia.jpg
Join the online policy discussion II
1. The Economic System
2. Social Security and the CPF
3. Healthcare
4. Kopitiam
 

Tak boleh tahan!

dancing-ministers.jpg
 

Singapore's #1 political website

no1_website.png
 

Friends of SDP

 
Banner
Banner
Banner
Home Perspective Vantage A rebuttal to PAP media crucifixion of Dr Chee Soon Juan
A rebuttal to PAP media crucifixion of Dr Chee Soon Juan PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Chia Ti Lik

Overview

The week before this, Dr Chee Soon Juan was involved in a trial against the two most powerful men in Singapore being the father and son team of Prime Minister and Minister Mentor. This clash had been recorded on the Court's audio recording and available for all to hear.


The much awaited clash produced collateral damage in the form of Justice Belinda Ang's citation of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin for contempt of Court. It inevitably resulted in jail sentences for the pair - 12 days for Dr. Chee and 10 days for Siok Chin.

After sending off Dr. Chee and Siok Chin on the afternoon of 4th June 2008, I had thought that the saga had ended. However, on 7th June 2008 Saturday morning, I was met with three articles touching on Dr. Chee. These were from Chua Lee Hoong of the Straits Times and Nazry Bahrawi and Derrick A. Paulo of Today.

In short, the articles were as follows:

1. Chua Lee Hoong attempts to take a swipe at Dr. Chee lamenting on his supposed squandered potential.

2. Nazry Bahrawi questions Dr. Chee's game plan.

3. Derrick A Paulo confesses to having less than independent thought in that remarks by a colleague shapes his opinion of Dr. Chee. Interestingly, his views are not shaped by what he perceives through his senses and processed by independent sentient thought.

The common thread throughout the three articles are that they sought to portray a stance of neutrality and concern but in the same breath seek to insidiously poison the readers' minds as to who Dr. Chee is and what he stands for.
I have penned down my responses to the same on the following articles.

If it is any significance, it should be noted that these articles are published whilst Dr. Chee is being held in incarceration for 12 days for pursuing a certain line of cross-examination of MM and PM in Court.

Derrick A Paulo's article in Weekend Today 7-8th June 2008

It is amazing how sometimes things in Singapore play themselves out.

I met Derrick A Paulo during my campaign in the last Election in GE2006. I somehow formed the opinion that Derrick was a reporter who was sympathetic to the opposition cause.

My impressions of Derrick are somewhat changed by his latest article. In that article I see Derrick performing the function of a columnist. His writing was that of a commentary. He was giving his personal opinion on the subject to be discussed.

Rightly so that his designation has changed to that of an Assistant Editor and not just a mere journalist or reporter I had known him to be. His current position allows him to comment on matters and he has chosen in a timely fashion to comment and give his opinion of Chee Soon Juan.

Firstly, I would like to state that it is strange that Derrick is writing about how his ideas are being shaped by those around him.

Naturally this topic does not stray into what was exchanged in Court between the Lees and the Chees. Interestingly though it was the persistence of the Chees in pursuing a certain line of questioning that brought them into contempt of Court.

Why does the press not choose to discuss this tumultuous exchange in open Court that resulted in the jail sentences for Chee Siok Chin and Chee Soon Juan?

Is it simply because the audio recording of the exchange is not freely available? Had the audio recording been made freely available, I would surmise that the focus would have been on the discourse between the Lees and Chees instead of it being glossed over and not given the due attention which it deserves.

Derrick digs up the past on Chee Soon Juan's debate with George Yeo on health care costs and subsidies. If that is supposed to be of any weight, is it not true now that Singapore's health care costs are skyrocketing through the roof? Singaporeans have to judge which the greater sin is.

A typographical error? Or the brazen collective inability of a bunch of ministers to solve a problem highlighted by a political opponent more than a decade and a half earlier?

Which is a bigger sin? A few dollars in postage costs, or millions of dollars of taxpayers' money?

The oft quoted excuse that a politician is no longer relevant because of the lack of support he is obtaining at a certain time is often used by those in power in an attempt to dissuade those from following the footsteps of that politician.

One need no further reminder that sham elections by Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party when he was in power had returned a vote of no less than 99% to the dictator.

Derrick betrays his pro-establishment double standards mindset that foreign connections have to be abandoned in the face of a need to win local support.

May I then ask why do our leaders keep on making overseas trips to meet foreign leaders especially those of dubious legitimacy and standing, ever so often?

Singapore is a city state which cannot live in isolation. Singapore may be an island but no Singaporean should be an island.
The government has exhorted our people over the years to work overseas and build an external economy. We were asked to position ourselves as global citizens. Our Government is a "foreigner lover" through and through in that it absorbs foreigners into civil service, welcomes foreigners into Singapore with more than open arms, and it is ever willing to cheapen the Singapore Citizenship by offering it to people whom have never made an iota of contribution to the Republic.

It is strange that when the establishment attempts to take a swipe at Dr. Chee, it forgets all that it has done. Like the thief who covers his ears as he steals the bell, it does not mean that if you do not hear it (or should I say choose not to hear it), the bell did not ring.

To give due credit to Derrick, I can say that Derrick has been reading on Dr. Chee's civil disobedience principles and trying to make sense out of them and Derrick tries his best to distinguish Singapore from the countries where civil disobedience has succeeded in bringing about change.

Whilst it is true that Dr Chee's civil disobedience principles are partly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and to a certain extent Nelson Mandela and it is also true that Singapore needs Singaporeans to change things.

It is a different ball game when intelligent and educated people in a position like Derrick choose to please the establishment by discouraging an entirely peaceful but assertive manner of placing pressure on the Government and encouraging avenues where it has been proven to be ineffective in bringing about change, it is no wonder that change is itself impeded. What have Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong achieved after more than 17 and 24 years respectively in parliament? A mere illusion of hope? Or a balm to soothe the wounded pride of the opposition?

In the article, I further sense a tinge of concern, persuasion and almost pleading for Chee Soon Juan to abandon his current course.

In as much as I try not to read too much into the workings of Derrick's mind but judging from the looks of the article which I have dissected, it is not difficult to position where his loyalty lies and from where the plea for Chee Soon Juan to cease his campaign originated from.

Chua Lee Hoong – The Squandered Potential of Chee Soon Juan: Thinking Aloud (ST 7th June 2008)

Chua Lee Hoong begins her article citing the entry of Dr. Chee into politics in 1992 then goes in depth into why she thinks Chee Soon Juan has squandered his potential.

Ms Chua also attempts to play psychologists in branding the subject of discussion i.e. Dr. Chee as someone with a personality disorder.

She even does further into issues between God and Man and between God-fearing men.

My attention is drawn to the fact that Chua Lee Hoong was invited twice to attend a forum on Press Freedom wherein she would have met Dr. Chee in person to express such views. I understand that Ms Chua has declined to attend twice citing various reasons.

Ms Chua not only knows that Dr. Chee is in prison at this moment. Incidentally, it is also during this period that she chooses to think aloud on matters outside her knowledge, expertise and training.

Nazry Bahrawi - What is Chee Soon Juan's game plan? (Weekend Today 7-8th June 2008)

Before his article was published, Nazry had emailed me near noon of 4th June 2008 and called me to draw my attention to the mail.

Thereafter, Nazry SMSed me twice, trying to get me to answer the mail. It turned out that I had no time to address the email as I was busy with Gopalan Nair's matter myself.

I only saw the email shortly before Nazry's article came out on 7th June 2008.

From the way Nazry's questions were phrased, it betrays that he had already formed an idea of how he wanted to pitch his article even before he had obtained his interviews.

In any event, Nazry's choice of quotes and interviews were obviously attempts to put Dr. Chee in bad light. Nazry cited the following:-

1. Non-graduate MP Charles Chong's attempt to pay psychologist by assessing Dr. Chee as a "complex character" and referring to the below and his expression of magnanimity and largess to have compassion for those who fall short of their own dreams and appear to be challenged in more than one way.

2. During the assessment of damages hearing, Lee Kuan Yew had quoted expert opinion from his experts commenting in vacuo that Dr. Chee was a megalomaniac, as if that carried any probity according to rules of evidence.

3. Minister Mentor LKY agreeing with SPP's Chiam See Tong on Dr. Chee Soon Juan being a megalomaniac.

4. An unnamed woman whom we do not even know actually exists using the words "backstreet brawler … doubt he is serious about being the opposition … "

5. Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre, Dr. Terence Chong, Institute of SEA Studies, NMP Siew Kum Hong, Assoc Prof. Eugene Tan SMU, Dr. Gillian Koh, IPS further lend their weight to the article that Dr. Chee Soon Juan would not get anywhere politically.

Nazry's article then cites the comments that the PAP would actually attempt to change tack towards Chee Soon Juan, by ignoring Dr. Chee and ceasing further defamation suits against him.

This is not the first time the press paves the way for PAP policy retreats.

If it is of any significance, it pays to note that such talk only emanated from the PAP camp just days after the scathing exchange between the Lees and the Chees in court.

Perhaps, the first ever of such face to face engagements between the Lees and the Chees are so much more than what the PAP and its administration could bear, such that the longstanding use of lawsuits have become an unattractive option.

Conclusion


In short, we have a political editor trying to play psychologist, an assistant editor without an independent opinion, and a journalist who had an opinion of how the article should read even before he started his interviews.

Faced with such glaring facts, it is no wonder the press in Singapore is being ranked 154th in the world.

Another thing


People operating under anxiety focus too much on Chee Soon Juan's political manoeuvres, which they incidentally opine will not bear fruit, and forget that Dr. Chee is a fully qualified psychologist even by the extremely stringent standards in the United States of America.

If there is anything to learn from what these characters like Lee Kuan Yew, Charles Chong, Chiam See Tong, Chua Lee Hoong attempt to play masak-masak Singapore-standard psychologist, one need only to be reminded that imitation is actually the sincerest form of flattery.


Chia Ti Lik, Ex-candidate in the past GE in 2006, Assistant Editor to SG Politics website, Lawyer and civil activist, law-abiding and goody two-shoes most of the time, a rebel and revolutionary deep within, a thinker and critic at times, and recently an activist very much prone to bouts of enthusiasm for civil disobedience.
Comments
Add New Search RSS
Operation Coldstore  -     Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:02 pm
I hope Chua Lee Hoong writes about her new found fame in "One Nation Under Lee".

Or maybe I could ask Jeanmarie Tan instead?
Joe Liberty  -  Mr    Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:59 pm
Ms Chua Li Hoong and her ilk are the last people on earth to talk about God. If all such evil doers like her and all the cronies - boot-licking PAP ministers, worthless PAP civil-servants, shameless PAP judges, the corrupted PAP Attorney-General & his unthinking,stupid sidekick prosecutors, unqualified PAP armchair generals, and all the PAP morons carrying out police duties, like the SPF, CPIB, CAD, ISD, MOM, ICA, etc - are nothing more than unpricipled, immoral men and women, who are the instruments of evil as they unquestioningly carry out and enforce unjust laws on the helpless people. These are the forces of evil, keeping the illegitimate father-son and family rule going all these years while the public suffering continues unabated. Thanks to the father-son rule that no lawyer in Singapore today can advise his client about his/her basic rights when faced with a alleged charge! The judges are directed to lean towards the prosecution in every case and the accused is always found guilty every time, with the disproportionate punishment imposed, highlighted and reported by the state-controlled Straits Times as if it is an achievement of the state! Barbaric canings are an everyday affair, the cruel hangings are carried out every Friday, and new jails have sprouted all over the island! Everyone who can leave that island of unhappiness are going away in droves and making their homes in liberal democracies. Unjust laws are passed everyday to change human behaviour and individual morality. The high cost living with ever decreasing opportunities and earnings is driving the people into despair and suicide. After helping to create this hell on earth Chua Li Hoong and her kind can talk about God? What morality is that? Which God does Chua Li Hoong and her kind, who have helped foster this despicable rule refer to? How dare they even mention God?
curious  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 1:35 am
Hi Mr. Chia. Nice, analytical essay you've managed to come up with there.

On just one note. You rhetorically asked, "What have Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong achieved after more than 17 and 24 years respectively in parliament? A mere illusion of hope? Or a balm to soothe the wounded pride of the opposition?"

I think that is certainly too sweeping a negative label to place on these 2 men.

Their contributions and achievements are more valuable and objective if viewed through the eyes of the constituents they serve, I believe. Interestingly, since you also pointed about the supposed inconsistency in views and stance of the 3 writers, I note that you were singing to a rather different tune just 2 years ago when you were standing for elections under the WP banner. If you really believe that the purpose of the two opposition MPs is bankrupt at its core, why did you even join their cause back then?

If it took a direct, personal participation in and interaction with the WP for you to realize the emptiness or lack of radical progress the 2 MPs' path has, than surely you cant reasonably expect ordinary singaporeans like myself (with no remotely direct or personal involvement with any other political party) to realize what you realized of the WP and SPP, and switch sides as easily and as swiftly as you did upon attaining political nirvana.

Just my 2 cents worth. Hope I dont become the next target of virulent vitriol here, which, sadly, has always been the fate of anyone with an even remotely differing point of view from those which seeks and succeed in reinforcing/feeding off one another's angst and resentment against the ruling regime. :dry:
Alamak Who Is The Mole?  -  DONT BE DOuBLE STANDARDS    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 1:36 am
Chee Soon Juan is a disgrace to Singaporeans. Chee is wasting taxpayers' money and should be put away under PREVENTIVE DETENTION for HIS ANTICs!!!
EMPTY VASSAL MAKES THE LOUDEST  -  EMPY VASSAL MAKES THE LOUDEST    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 1:49 am
DIN
Anonymous  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 2:37 am
SDP calls itself the bastion of Democracy. And yet SDP does not publish adverse comments posted on SDP's blog. Who is Dishonourable? SDP is!

What joke!!! What mockery!!!

Publish the commentary below: Don't RUN AWAY CHIA TI LIK or CHEE SOON JUAN

Chee Soon Juan is a Shennanigan

First, Chee is neither a Patriot nor a representative of the Opposition. By Chee's antics Chee is drawing international spotlight on Singapore and damaging Singapore's reputation.

Second, what is the damage to Singapore's reputation? A huge black spot has been smeared on the canvas of the progress Singaporeans have made and their achievements.

What is the black spot? The black spot is CHEE SOON JUAN. Chee is making an issue out of himself; and trying to detract attention from more important issues. Chee is kicking a fuss on civil and criminal actions taken against him for his antics.

The hearing for Assessment of Damages is a Court Forum. Questions asked or evidence led must be relevant to the issues at hand. It is not a Forum to debate socio-politico issues. The Supreme Court is not the Arts Faculty of any University. Judges do have to rule on relevance. Their ruling on the issues of relevance is commonplace. So, there is absolutely no basis for Chee to make personal attacks on the Judge, alleging in the most scurrilous fashion lack of independence. This manner of impugning the Judiciary is scandalous and vexatious.

Third, the Supreme Court Judges are correct go give decisions against the Opposition in defamation actions. Putting it simplistically, Singapore's Legal System is derived from the British and the tort of defamation is inherited from the British.

Tort of defamation as a cause of action is Plaintiff friendly. The Plaintiff does not have to make an iota of effort to disprove the sting of the defamatory allegation against him / her. It is for the Defendant to prove justification or truth of the sting.

This often poses difficulty when the Plaintiff has all the information and the facts. Take for instance, Durai's case. Straits Times commented that it was “DEJA VU” when it turned out that allegations against Durai for using donation-fund to fly first class and to make gold tap turn out to be true. And yet Durai had successfully sued individuals and obtained from them payment of damages. How did this absurdity come about? Because the Individuals at that time did not have the information to prove the sting of their allegation. Durai had and was dishonourable enough not to admit to what he had done.

Third, an example of Chee diverting attention away from key issues is that Chee has not put the SPOTLIGHT on the most critical of issues - that the Law on Tort of Defamation has to be Reformed.

Fourth, no thanks to the ineptitude of CHEE SOON JUAN's lawyer Mr M Ravi Singapore's law on tort of defamation is lagging behind other jurisdictions. In UK they have applied a balance of interests test in the case of Reynolds giving journalists greater latitude to write about politicians on matters of public interest.

The legal principles in Reynolds have been referred to in Australia and New Zealand. Reynolds have been applied in Malaysia.

The legal principles in Reynolds evolve from Derbyshire County's case which bars Government or Government bodies from suing as the English House of Lords recognise that the public have an interest to know whether Government or Government servants are abusing their position and in the face of allegations for abuse of position they - the Plaintiffs - are in the best position to come up with the facts and information to prove the falsity of the sting of the alleged defamatory statement.

The Court is a forum to argue legal issues. It is indeed an abuse of process to ventilate personal views, make poisonous personal attacks on the Plaintiffs and air political comments.

By doing so CHEE SOON JUAN is wasting taxpayers' money.

The inevitable conclusion is that the Judge is right to cite Chee Soon Juan for contempt and impose custodial sentence against him as Chee Soon Juan has an antecedent.
GC Chwee  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 4:35 am
Quote:
Anonymous said - SDP calls itself the bastion of Democracy. And yet SDP does not publish adverse comments posted on SDP's blog. Who is Dishonourable? SDP is!

What joke!!! What mockery!!!

Your opening statement alone discredit you and everything that you wrote thereafter.

It only shows that you have not been reading comments, otherwise you would not have said what you said, or you are merely out to ridicule SDP without regard for the clear evidence that is before your eyes.
Tan Tai Wei  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 5:17 am
Thanks, "Anonymous". The latter part of your posting is helpful, unlike the polemical beginning.

So you are agreeing in spirit with many here who, in layman's language, have complained about court "bias" against the Chees. You are saying that the "tort of defamation", applied by our courts, ought to be changed, since it unfairly favours the plaintiff in defamation suits.

As to your point about "relevance" of the Chees' questions at the recent hearing, I would agree they are irrelevant if the court intended to ignore the Lees' political standing and "integrity" when assessing the purported damage to their reputation.

But it was clear that "damage" to their political standing was going to be key to the court's assessment.

So, the issue of their political integrity was fundamentally relevant. And the Chees' line of questioning was to address it, in order that the judge could assess it even before she was to base her assessment of damages upon it.
Bidadari  -  A Perfect Analysis    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 5:37 am
Well done Mr. Chia, the best analysis money can buy, and rest who wants to throw in with disparaging remarks, they all can go suck a lemon if they wanted to, and here's a Malay word of gratitude towards your wonderful contribution..Sebagai tanda dan jasa terhormat, inilah sekalung bunga untok anda.
Mike  -  Great article by Anonymous    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 5:38 am
I like the piece of writing by Anonymous

Quote:
The hearing for Assessment of Damages is a Court Forum. Questions asked or evidence led must be relevant to the issues at hand. It is not a Forum to debate socio-politico issues. The Supreme Court is not the Arts Faculty of any University. Judges do have to rule on relevance. Their ruling on the issues of relevance is commonplace. So, there is absolutely no basis for Chee to make personal attacks on the Judge, alleging in the most scurrilous fashion lack of independence. This manner of impugning the Judiciary is scandalous and vexatious.


Hmmm.. eloquent B)
Tan Tai Wei  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 5:47 am
Let me add another observation to my reply to "Anonymous".

The "tort of defamation" is biased in favour of plaintiffs at defamation suits, "anonymous" interestingly tells us, quoting several judiciaries that have abolished it.

"Anonymous" seems to imply that it has been morally wrong for our government, instead of also abolishing the "tort of defamation", to take advantage of it to sue political opponents!
bypasser  -     Thu, 12 Jun 2008 6:16 am
Just a fair word of comment by a bypasser like me.I was wondering why the anti PAP comments and pro PAP comments are differeniate.The Pro pap ones are highlighted.Let the people who read the website to judge.Don't highlight the ones you don't like so you can single them out.
Anonymous  -  re:    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 6:41 am
bypasser wrote:
Just a fair word of comment by a bypasser like me.I was wondering why the anti PAP comments and pro PAP comments are differeniate.The Pro pap ones are highlighted.Let the people who read the website to judge.Don't highlight the ones you don't like so you can single them out.


They are not highlighted
ahlow  -  Thank you, mr chia.    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 7:03 am
Dear Mr Chia Ti Lik,

The perpetual attack on Dr Chee's character is vexing.
It seems that these people are in unison, wave after wave, non-stop attacking, why are they doing it ?

The opera reminds us the Gomez saga when the whole GE was about Gomez, and they won 82 seats.

people in the coffeshops, Pubs, and in the streets do not understand why the hype on Dr Chee's character when there are more pressing issues that DR Chee has mentioned that affected the sinkapore's future, did these people look at the brighter side of Dr Chee? The answer is NO.

Mr Chia, i hope that when Dr Chee is released from jail, perhaps,please assist Dr Chee to look into all these comments and respond resolutely so as to quell this nonsense once and for all.

In short, if there is good ground to bring these people to court, i hope Dr Chee would, nevermind the court is kangaroo or not.

Had my friends and i not read the SDP website, we would be still thinking otherwise.

i also hope GOD and deities punish those people and their families who have an intention to smear Dr Chee further. They have not weared the shoes Dr Chee is wearing, they will never feel the pain and anxiety, only the divine could teach them a lesson

God bless you, Mr chia, well done.
Mchael Chan  -  Well said and well done!    Thu, 12 Jun 2008 7:14 am
Thanks Mr Chia Ti Lik! Excellent truth-be-told responses to the dramatic happenings here in S'pore the past few weeks/days.
I'm so glad and relieved that young intelligent professionals like you are now coming out to support the cause of freedon and democracy for Singapore.
The way forward hereon and henceforth can only be fast progress towards the universal goal of democracy and freedom from fear and autocracy for us, the citizens of Singapore!
I hope Dr CSJ and esp Ms CSC will always remember that freedom-fighters and democracy dissidents never had the going easy for them. In fact, as Mrs CSJ stated in her recent posting, history requires them to be baptised by fire first by being imprisoned by their evil autocrats/dicatators.

Nelson Mendela, Kim Dae Jung and nearer home Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, Lim Eng Guan and Karpal Singh were all without exception incarcerated not for weeks or months but YEARS before they were released to become Presidents,de facto Opp leader (soon to be PM), Chief Minister of Penang (I'll be there 15-18June) and MPs.

The Chee siblings jailed by Mother Kangaroo for only 10 and 12 days? Mrs GCT, ex-patron of NKF would have said "PEANUTS!"!
Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

Donate to Legal Defence Fund

 

Vantage

Riding out the financial crisis

Chia Ti Lik

Year 2008 is a year of change, of forced consolidation and rebirth.

Out of university in 1998, I entered the workforce in 1999 fresh with memories of having to work part-time throughout my practice law course. The economy was still feeling the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

Read more
 
The quicksand of Sands

Singapore Democrats

Just weeks after the Singapore authorities gave an upbeat report that the Integrated Resort Casino will create thousands of jobs, developer Las Vegas Sands (or as some wit cracked, Lost Wages Sands) reported that it is haemorrhaging cash and will likely file for bankruptcy.

Read more
 

People's Power

Banner
Banner
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack