Matters of Chee's

last SG · 2006-06-20T23:35:13+00:00

The more people listen and understand why Chee chose this path, the better. We may not agree with his ideas fully, but we have to acknowledge his gumption....

lionnoisy SG

May 27, 2006
Chee's case to be heard in open court
THE High Court informed Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) Chee Siok Chin yesterday that her application to annul the General Election results would be heard in open court.
.
According to her lawyer, Mr M Ravi, the hearing has been set for June 27 and it will be open to the public, rather than being conducted in chambers, which is sometimes done as a matter of procedure.......
.
This is the first time that such a challenge has been mounted.
.
And according to Mr Ravi, Ms Chee had made a formal request for the court to hold an open hearing when it considered her application. Loh Chee Kong,
WEEKEND TODAY
.

2.Chee Siok Chin takes legal action against PAP's electioneering

will u Support legal defence fund for Chee Siok Chin?

3.can CSJ give a lesson to ISD how to 'deal with' terorists suspects?

Buy them a big dinner at 5 stars hotel?

4.Detention without trial

At least 36 men remained in detention without charge or trial under the ISA.

This is common for western countries detention without trial after 9-11.
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
(CHAPTER 143),sect 11 (2) (a) be informed of his right to make representations to an advisory board under subsection (1);

Shall CSJ suggest all terrorists suspects be trial in open court?

gd4u SG

OMG, u compare CSJ to a terrorist?? Hmm, the ideas of CSJ are correct, but sadly, the way he expresses it is wrong …

kopikid SG

Banning podcasting and blogging

On 4 April 2006, the Straits Times reported: "New Internet technologies, such as podcasting and videocasting, cannot be used to disseminate political content during the General Election, the Government said yesterday. In the most extensive answer to date on online electioneering, Dr Balaji Sadasivan noted that streaming of 'explicit political content' by political parties or individuals is banned under election advertising rules set in 2001. He also had news for bloggers: They can discuss politics, but will have to register their sites if they consistently espouse a political line." The unconstitutional ban on podcasting had affected the campaign of the opposition and thus affecting the outcome of voting.

why litat..ban this ban that gg la

lionnoisy SG

However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us
that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.

quote from
bloody singapore ,
not a frienfly name!!

2.i cant find what the bloody claimed in PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, Cap. 218,sect 39A,49A

3.so CSJ is assisting defaming spore without proper checking?
can frens of CSJ here ask Dr Chee and post his reply here.
In quoting bloody essay in SDP site,CSJ is agreeing to the points.
He cant say oh i did not say this,i just quote.

oxford mushroom SG

Where does Miss Chee get so much money to file a high court challenge? I have a feeling the court will eventually dismiss it with costs, which means she will probably have to get ready 100k to pay her legal costs.

singabloodypore SG

http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/51540

Overseas voting - Version PAP
Damaso G Magbual
May 25, 06 2:23pm
Malaysiakini

Overseas voting was introduced in April 2001 to provide Singaporeans with strong links to Singapore to have their say through their votes.

However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.

There definitely is merit in the observation of a student in Canada when he said that there is unequal rights to vote for all Singaporeans who are not associated with any government or public agency referring to himself and all Singaporeans who are similarly situated.

Voting is a basic human right and not a privilege, which the state grants to its citizens. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of suffrage as universal, it means all citizens of a given state, who are not reasonably restricted by law, have the right to vote. A primary concern of the right of suffrage is participation and international norms favour expanding rather than restricting this right.

Principle of non-discrimination

Hence, Singaporeans who have no direct or indirect affiliation with the government staying overseas and are not allowed to vote are arbitrarily denied a basic human right. This violates the principle of non-discrimination in the treatment of voters eligibility, which is an essential characteristic of a free and fair election.

Some jurisdictions/democracies (India, Taiwan, Chile) do not grant their citizens residing outside the country voting rights. There are two basic reasons for this.

First, the setting up of systems and procedures on how the overseas citizens can vote on election day is in itself an administrative nightmare to the electoral body. Then there is the difficulty of designating the electoral district/constituency to which the votes will be assigned. Both reasons may not apply to Singapore. It is a known fact that the technological advance of Singapore is the envy of its Asian neighbours. Hence, setting up systems for overseas voting that will cover all Singaporeans should not pose any problem.

Secondly, the city/state has a limited number of districts/constituencies (23 SMCs and GRCs), unlike India, which is the biggest democracy in the world. Again, designating the district of an overseas voter should not present any problem given Singapores level of technological sophistication.

Some countries have certain restrictions on overseas voting but these restrictions are not on the right of citizens to vote. The restrictions are on their participation in a given election. France and the Philippines for instance, allow their overseas citizens to vote in some elections (national elections as against local elections) or for some positions (national versus local constituency). This avoids the difficulty of designating specific constituencies for the overseas votes.

Singapore restricts the rights of certain voters; the two examples cited restrict the type of election and the position to be voted upon. The former violates the basic principle of equality before the law and therefore discriminatory. The other two do not.

Discouraging support

The provisions of the Parliamentary Election Act that defines overseas voting is not only discriminatory to the overseas citizens but denies the political contestants who do not belong to the Peoples Action Party a level playing field. Voting rights to overseas Singaporeans are limited to those with ties or affiliations with the government.

The PAP has been the dominant party - a virtual hegemony - since Singapore became independent. Those allowed to vote, since they are overseas by reason of their ties to the government are presumed if not expected to vote for the PAP. This certainly places the other parties at a distinct disadvantage.

The restriction on overseas voting to Singaporeans with ties to the government tends to confirm the perception that the PAP as the ruling party, has thrown at the opposition every possible obstacle to grow and develop as viable parties.

Too often changes in policies have almost always made it more difficult for opponents of the PAP to compete. The provision of block voting for the Group Representation Constituencies, the redrawing of political districts, and now the discriminatory provision of the overseas voting, all tend to confirm the impression that indeed the PAP has done everything to discourage support for the opposition.

The graduate student in Vancouver, Canada has a legitimate grievance in that the law is discriminatory. Hence, either the law allows all overseas citizens the right to vote or confine the right of suffrage only to citizens residing in the country. This is equality before the law!

DAMASAO G MAGBUAL is attached to the Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).

OO_OO_OO SG

notice that after they got their 66.6 percent votes (which incidenly resembles the devils number), they went on to harp about how a large marjoity of singaporeans overseas voted for them.

sighs...
i really hope the trial changes some things.

lionnoisy SG

Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini by quoting 2 essays in SDP official site?

it is quoted in SDP site

2.Guest workers or indentured labour? also quoted fr Malaysiakini.

Why CSJ so like Malaysiakini?

Foreigner workers are free to go back or work in other country.

Their lifes are hard here,for they dunt hv a PhD!!

Dunt blame Spore if they are not happy here.If their govt can
provide enough jobs in their home contry,.they will not be here.

There are some 600,000 low paid foreigner workers here.
I assume they hv average 4 persons to feed.We,a tiny
red dot,help to feed 3 million foreigners!!

It is damn easy to point figure,like Gomez.But how to
improve their lifes,CSJ?Dunt bring problems without solutions.

Increase their pay?Send them back?How?How?

Atobe SG

Malaysiakini provides ALTERNATIVE VIEWS that are contrary to the Government's Propaganda Machine in Malaysia.

What is the surprise that Malaysiakini has reported on issues that have been raised by ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PARTIES in Singapore, or that the Singapore Alternative Political Parties will share prints from Malaysiakini ?

Are you certain that all the 600,000 foreign workers are all low wage earners ?

Are you confusing yourself with the foreign workers who are domestic help with the daily crossing of 200,000 Malaysian workers that provide the critical labor in our shipyards and electronic manufacturing facilities, and those other foreign workers who are highly paid foreign talents ?

Are you certain that CSJ has no solution to the problems which he has identified and raised ?

It looks like you have not read some of the books written by CSJ, in which he has offered solutions to the problems created by the POWER OF ONE.

For starter, you may try reading :

" Dare to Change : An Alternative Vision for Singapore " - ( 1994 )

" Sinagapore, My Home Too " - ( 1995 )

"Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom" - (2001)

You will be surprised that after the 2001 Elections, the POWER OF ONE had implemented policies that surprisingly seem to be taken off " Dare to Change : An Alternative Vision for Singapore " that was written in 1994.

lionnoisy SG

chee and other charged again,

another free international media appearance.

Without democracy we remain helpless when the PAP government passes laws without consulting the people.

2.when this day come,sg will finish.Some one jus simple .say
abolish all tax ,everything free,use our reserve,sell everythings under Temasek,
GIC.....and he will win.

Atobe SG

Regretably, I find your last statement intolerably condescending.

Do you take Singaporeans to be fools, or should we take you seriously at your last statement ?

Have you have been fed on foreign food for too long, and lost touch with local flavours, and have now looked at Singaporeans with such disdain, or have you a serious grudge against locals who cannot move out of their FORTY YEAR OLD 'Matrix' ?

Your last statement smacks of the contemptuous arrogance similar to that of the POWER OF ONE towards Singaporeans in general, and belittle our better sense of judgment for our own Future.

That statement belittle the intelligence and courage of the younger Singaporeans, who have dared to stand-up and be counted as Candidates with the Alternative Parties in the recent 2006 Elections.

During the recent 2006 Elections, did you hear anyone from the Alternative Parties making that last statement, which you and the Power of One have constantly brought up as part of the FEAR STRATEGY ?

If you are disillusioned, take a deep breath, and have faith that SIX YOUNG UNKNOWN CANDIDATES were able to rock the GRC foundation led by PM LHL, and shook his percentage despite the odds thrown against the SIX YOUNG HEROES from the Alternative Party.

This is only for starters - and the results were achieved without any of those wild promises that were alleged to be a hallmark of Alternative Parties to gain votes.

fymk SG

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
[b]chee and other charged again,

another free international media appearance.

2.when this day come,sg will finish.Some one jus simple .say
abolish all tax ,everything free,use our reserve,sell everythings under Temasek,
GIC.....and he will win.[/b]

Atobe , not all of us overseas are like lionidiot. I don't like Chee for one thing- he craps in front of foreigners but I have hope for the other political parties like WP .

No. one day someone will say

Taxes we need - but let's see what we can do to alleviate things on HDB flat costs, healthcare.

Open up the process of governance - Make the government more transparent

Those at the top in government owned companies who made incredible losses like in Suzhou industrial park will be made to pay it back and sacked.

Abolish the Minister's pay and let it be comparable to all developed countries plus bonuses if they can actually give singaporeans work and still maintain a surplus

innosaint SG

Chee is a fool. With all that PHDs, he can be wif PAPpys & be a top minister Get his pay in "peanut" currencies Shocked & live a good life!

But choose to give all up to fight for some "rights" of SG ppl who probably dun give a damm & lead their selfish lives & continue voting the PA............ ahhhhh , wat the hell !!!! Rolling Eyes

Atobe SG

Originally posted by innosaint:
Chee is a fool. With all that PHDs, he can be wif PAPpys & be a top minister Get his pay in "peanut" currencies & live a good life!

But choose to give all up to fight for some "rights" of SG ppl who probably dun give a damm & lead their selfish lives & continue voting the PA............ ahhhhh , wat the hell !!!!

Is CSJ a 'fool' ?

So what if you are a PhD in PAPpy's cabinet ?

Is there any guarantee that a PhD will get you a Ministerial post ?

Sadly, despite all his efforts, he remains an enigma in the Singapore Political Scene, very much maligned by the POWER OF ONE and Singaporeans, and taking the same path of confrontation as JBJ had.

At least, JBJ made an impact and knew how to play politics, but unfortunately, CSJ is like a virgin thrown into the wolves den.

lionnoisy SG

what abilities of 6 wise wo/men showed then people voted for them?

have people voted for them just because they are opposition?

here we hv freedom to vote for alternative parties.

2.

Mr M Ravi has dedicated himself to these cases and has-, as with previous cases, worked tirelessly and pro bono. He needs all the assistance he can get.

--means mr ravi do for free lah.

but

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 1017 OF 2006/W

1 We have been instructed to act for Ms Chee Siok Chin as Counsel in respect of the above matter.

2 Our client had filed the aforesaid application as litigant-in-person. Being a lay person, she was not conversant with legal procedure.

where is mr ravi?does he suppose to assist SDP to fight for justice?
now she missed the dead line and make international media has
somethings to write.

does mr rave really helping SDP or he only helped when
SDP made the news,again,and again.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
what abilities of 6 wise wo/men showed then people voted for them?

have people voted for them just because they are opposition?

here we hv freedom to vote for alternative parties.

If you really want to know about the "ABILITIES of 6 wise wo/men" - try reading each of their profile :

Abdul Salim Bin Harun Age 24

Gopal Krishnan Age 52

Han Su May Age 30

Lee Wai Leng Age 26

Tan Kian Hwee Melvin Age 30

Yaw Shin Leong Age 30

It is not so much their qualification, but their youthful honesty, and their guts to take on the braggarts who had it so good all the time, with the red carpets always rolled out for them.

2.
Mr M Ravi has dedicated himself to these cases and has, as with previous cases, worked tirelessly and pro bono. He needs all the assistance he can get. --means mr ravi do for free lah.

At last - someone brave enough to offer some charity to the weak, the poor, and the downtrodden ?

but ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 1017 OF 2006/W

1 We have been instructed to act for Ms Chee Siok Chin as Counsel in respect of the above matter.

2 Our client had filed the aforesaid application as litigant-in-person. Being a lay person, she was not conversant with legal procedure.

where is mr ravi?does he suppose to assist SDP to fight for justice?
now she missed the dead line and make international media has
somethings to write.

does mr rave really helping SDP or he only helped when
SDP made the news,again,and again.

If you did not know, all of the SDP Leadership had offered their apologies to both MM and PM - except for CSJ and his sister.

Is there any sense for SDP to put up any defence ?

If you must know, Mr Ravi had indicated his willingness to remains available to the SDP - supposedly whether they are in or out of the case.

lionnoisy SG

mr ravi should advised her in procedures.if so.she
would not missed the dead line.

why she missed dead line?tell me.

if mr ravi has been assisting chee's sibling,why both of them always
done the wrong thing or at the wrong time?:

example 1:

Ms Chee had not known that she was required to pay a deposit of $5,000 within three days of filing the OS-- Originating Summons .

why ravi not told her that she need to pay deposit?

example 2:

Lawyers say party leader Chee Soon Juan had written to the High Court last Friday asking for an adjournment for this case.

But the assistant registrar had urged Dr Chee to write to the lawyers or come to court on Wednesday(7 june 2006).

Dr Chee did neither.

....The High Court ruled in favour of the two leaders after the SDP failed to file a defence for defamatory remarks made in the January edition of its newspaper.

why mr ravi did not request for adjourment of hearing ?
the layman csj then wrote to court instead of lee's lawyer.

In the latter case,CSJ would tell western ferns that PAP
ruled the case without hearing his representations.

but he choose not appear in Court.Was there any 'accident'
made him cant appear in court?

3.pl fight in a clean manner,csj.dunt use the excuse that i
dunt like the system then i dunt follow the rules!!
follow the rules of the game and u can play longer.

read how LKY played with British colony government
when he represented labour unions in 1950's.
he as a lawyer was in a better position than u lah.
but u hv mr ravi,the humand rights lawyer,and
platoon of western advisers,incl some QC, to help u.

if LKY did not play by the rules of the game,he would
enjoy the scenery in Mount Pleasant lah.

LKY's Memory may sit side by side with your good few your books
in national library

pikamaster SG

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
mr ravi should advised her in procedures.if so.she
would not missed the dead line.

why she missed dead line?tell me.

if mr ravi has been assisting chee's sibling,why both of them always
done the wrong thing or at the wrong time?:

example 1:[b]

why mr ravi did not request for adjourment of hearing ?
the layman csj then wrote to court instead of lee's lawyer.

In the latter case,CSJ would tell western ferns that PAP
ruled the case without hearing his representations.

but he choose not appear in Court.Was there any 'accident'
made him cant appear in court?

3.pl fight in a clean manner,csj.dunt use the excuse that i
dunt like the system then i dunt follow the rules!!
follow the rules of the game and u can play longer.

read how LKY played with British colony government
when he represented labour unions in 1950's.
he as a lawyer was in a better position than u lah.
but u hv mr ravi,the humand rights lawyer,and
platoon of western advisers,incl some QC, to help u.

if LKY did not play by the rules of the game,he would
enjoy the scenery in Mount Pleasant lah.

LKY's Memory may sit side by side with your good few your books
in national library

[/b]

Lionnoisy,

As much as I don't like CSJ (and prefer WP), I don't really like your attitude either. You sound - pardon me for being rude, which I usually aren't - like a bloody foghorn sounding at night. Firstly, recently, there have been quite a no. of complaints of how the legal system is biased toward the prosecutor, in this cas the Father and the Son. I don't doubt Ravi would have asked for an adjournment, it's juz tt the ST didn't report THAT fact; ST never tells the complete truth on local affairs. And if he didn't, it's probably because he wasn't informed of teh date until the eleventh hour. SO you can't really blame the poor lawyer.

And regarding PAP, LKY fought in a clean manner? Oh, pls give a break. Stop reading those triumphalist local histories, including the Great Man's memoirs, and search for sth a little more objective, such as the DIscovery Channel documentary. LKY ditched his supporters - the Commies - when it suited him to do so. He had manipulated them to win support of the Chinese-ed people, then he threw them out when he decided to throw his cushions in with the Brits, whom our school history syllabi have enjoyed derogating for years. CSJ follows the rules, no matter how sparingly; it's the PAP-established system that violates the Constitution.

Lol, Mr Lionniosy, you are really becoming headache in this forum. You are so lucky that people here are much milder (except ATOBE) than those in Sintercom, which I remember you were there. You aren't going to find much support for your fanatic pro-PAP views here, man. SGForums is not YP BBs. I would advise you, please moderate your sentiment, and engage in more fruitful discussion.

Cheers,
the (dissappointed) pikamaster

lionnoisy SG

2.how u know its 11th hour?who told him at 11th hour?
CSJ or AG or the Court?If RAVI represented CSJ,ravi should handle
dealing with Court,not CSJ----as ravi said,a layman lah.

3.LKY fought smart with British---played by the rules.
i dunt think he would miss any dead line for submission
or filing appeal of cases,or accused small civil servant wrongly.
i means he fought clean with British.If he fought clean with
opposition is another issue.

read how ex-President of Sg C.V. Devan Nair wrote in 1994:

Indeed, my fellow detainees and I had as legal counsel a brilliant lawyer and vocal freedom-fighter by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, who has publicly borne witness to the comfortable circumstances in which we lived under detention, and how he was able to visit us, without supervision, to discuss, among other things, strategies for bringing the colonial rule of our jailers to an end.

After the statutory period of 21 days' solitary confinement, my fellow detainees and I were allowed to live together in camp conditions, whether in Changi or, even better, on salubrious St. John's Island. Our lawyer, Lee Kuan Yew, was freely allowed to visit and talk to us, without Special Branch supervision, and to plan with us the downfall of the British colonial power. So free were we as political detainees to pursue our own interests and studies that we light-heartedly referred to our places of detention as "St. John's" University and "Changi" University.

Lee was central to this combination, since his work representing unions and radical students had provided a bridge. This work had rapidly increased in 1954 to 1955. This work included helping:

· leftwing (see below) students who had been arrested in May 1954 because of their protest against National Service

· University of Malaya socialists accused of publishing seditious Fajar article, and

· legal advice for leftwing unions such as the Singapore Bus Workers Union.

5.u think Special Branch or the Government then dunt want LKY
disappear or caught him making mistakes?or course they wanted.
all communist or their supporter,incl LKY,must be kept under
control.

LKY,unlike mr Ravi,fought for his clients carefully.what
would happened to LKY if SP knew his activities,plotted to
overthrow the government?LKY just settle in Mount Pleasant
for good if he get caught.No joke.

Unlike Mr Ravi in 2006,just write a letter to AG,cc media,if he made
a mistake.

u think ur grand/parents voted for pap for no reasons or
just voted for oppositions?

LKY and his commrades hv done many things.read more
lah.

yes,i am pro pap.i just support party which have done good
for sg or the party show it will do good for sg.
u can call me running dog of pap etc.
but i and my kids just hope to be running dogs of
stable lifes.

BillyBong SG

Don't bite the hand that rocks the cradle eh?

For starters, it would be foolish to rely on Straits Times as the sole source of your information; the elections has proven their pictures and articles GROSSLY unreliable. Other political bloggers such as Alex Au (with his photo stories at Yawning Bread) have shown that the loca press deliberately OMIT vital statements made by the aggrieved parties, instead painting the ruling party in excellent light.

If you truly wish to be the judge of character, attend the court hearings, witness the proceedings yourself, then be your own judge.

That being said, the Chee siblings were always fighting a losing battle. Despite their valient (perhaps at times naive) efforts, no SG court would ever endorse their case, so the proceedings itself were a mere formality.

Much of the law and the constitution has been commuted to meet the needs of the Ruling Party. What they cannot convince in parliament or in referendums, they legislate. The outcome is always the same.

Fighting a case against the govt is worse than little David against THE GOLIATH.