http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discuss-singapore/message/17317
>
> http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=632
>
> More lies by local media on Chee
> 5 November 2004
> The Singapore media is clearly determined to stay at the
bottom of
> press freedom rankings.
>
> Ms Sue-Ann Chia's report Chee `lied' about visits to avoid
court
> hearing (ST, 5 Nov 2004) could not be anymore slanted even if
one
> tried.
>
> Ms Chia wrote that "The Taiwan visit [in February 2004] was
missing
> from Dr. Chee's sworn statement to the court in which he
listed the
> places he had visited between February and September."
>
> What she omitted to report was that Dr Chee had told the court
that
> the date in question was 6 September 2004 during which the
hearing
> was held. Dr Chee had stopped in Taiwan enroute to the US for
his
> fellowship in February 2004. How was February relevant to the
date in
> question which was September? Ms Chia intentionally omitted Dr
Chee's
> reply to make it out that Dr. Chee had intentionally hidden
this from
> the public.
The line of argument is that there is a pattern of deception from
Chee
as he did not explain in detail of his Taiwan "stopover", just
covered
it as part of his fellowship as he said:
"Before I had left for the US for my fellowship, I had informed
the
courts on 31 January 2004 that I would be away from February
until
August 2004 and to postpone all matters regarding the case until
my
return."
While Chee complained Singh was missing details, he did the
same.
>
> Dr Chee had also said that although the fellowship officially
started
> on 1 March 2004, he had to leave earlier to stopover in Taiwan
(for
> Dr Chee's wife to visit her parents and to break the journey
up as it
> was difficult for children to make the long journey in one
go).
>
> In addition he had to arrive in the US in advance in order to
look
> for housing, a school for the children, and other
logistical
> arrangements. All this may not be within the official
fellowship
> period by were certainly tasks that were related to the
fellowship.
> Of course, the local media again did not inform the public
about this
> matter.
How many days he spent in Taiwan and how many days he spent in US
to
take care of these errants and other logistical arrangement?
Why
missing these details?
To say that all these "may not be within the official
fellowship
period" sound fishy. Are we talking about Chee's time was owned
by
NED fellowship program 24X7 during the whole period. If not, then
all
he need to do was work out some flex-hours with NED to swap some
of
his office hours with his private hours. If his family stayed
in
Spore, he would have avoided all these troubles.
It raise a question of the nature of his "gatecrashing" Mr Goh and
Mr
Koo's conferences. Were those visits "within the official
fellowship
period"? Was he acting on his own or on behave of NED?
>
> Channel News Asia reported: "In actual fact, Dr Chee was on
holiday
> in Taiwan with his family." Dr Chee had explained that it
was
> impossible for him to leave his three children with his wife
and in-
> laws in Taiwan and return alone to Singapore as his in-laws
were not
> in the best of health. The report, of course, deliberately
left out
> Dr Chee's explanation.
From TODAY's report, a media in this "totalitarian" state did reort
it:
Chee quizzed over priorities
Friday November 5, 2004
Saying that his in-laws are not in good health, a visibly-agitated
Dr
Chee, who was arguing his own defence, retorted that he could
not
possibly leave his wife to take care of his three children
the
youngest one being only one month old.
But Mr Singh pointed to another trip that Dr Chee had made to
Hong
Kong in August which he failed to mention in his affidavit
detailing
his travel history and said: "Everything you've told us is
so
dramatic ... But days after your baby was born, you flew to Hong
Kong
to preach about democracy. You could leave the baby then and there
was
no problem.
That was because his sister had helped look after his family when
he
went to Hong Kong, Dr Chee argued.
>
> This kind of journalism is what one would expect from
totalitarian
> states where the government chokes information flow, freedoms
of
> expression and justice in the country. But then again, nobody
ever
> disputed that Singapore was run by a dictatorship.
