http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discuss-singapore/message/17302
> Closing submissions
>
> 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.
Be real. Chee is saying he can just inform others his schedule
and
expect others to work around it. He should have called a meeting
to
settle the date for the case or get an agreement to postpone
all
matters before he left for his fellowship.
>
> Despite knowing this, the plaintiffs wrote to the court on 4
February
> and asked for the hearing dates to be fixed. The courts
obliged and
> set 10 February for all parties to appear before it to take
dates
> even though it had received my letter indicating that I would
be away.
What does Chee has to show that the plaintiffs had received
the
information?
>
> Drew & Napier, the law firm that represents Mr Lee Kuan
Yew and Mr
> Goh Chok Tong, claims that it had faxed me their letter of
4
> February. I did not see the letter. If I had seen it I would
have
> been alerted to the session on 10 February. There are three
important
> things to note regarding this letter that was supposedly faxed
to me:
>
> - one, Drew & Napier always send their correspondence to
me via more
> than one mode: by fax, by post, and by hand. In addition,
whenever it
> sent a document by hand or by post, the firm would have it
delivered
> to both my office and home. This one particular letter was
only faxed
> to my office.
>
> - two, in the bundle of documents that the plaintiffs had
compiled
> for the hearing, the palintiffs' counsel curiously omitted to
include
> this letter when it is always very meticulous about presenting
each
> and every document.
>
> - three, during my cross-examination Mr Davinder Singh showed
me a
> copy of the letter which had the date of transmission printed
over
> it. Mr Singh then quickly took back the letter and did not
leave a
> copy of it for me even though I had requested for one.
Those are good points. Chee would benefit if he discloses
more
details about this part of the cross-examiniation.
>
> There are several questions that the plaintiffs and their
counsel, Mr
> Singh, should answer:
>
> - one, why did Mr Lee and Mr Goh insist on asking the court to
set
> the dates for the hearing despite knowing that I was going to
be away
> and not be able to attend the session?
How will Chee prove that Goh and Lee knew of his schedule or that
they
were sure Chee could not change his schedule?
>
> - two, why was the 4-February letter only faxed to me (if it
was in
> fact faxed) when other letters were always also sent by post
and/or
> by hand to my office and home?
>
> - three, how did he obtain the transmission information
printed over
> the letter? Would he be willing to allow me to verify
the
> authenticity of the transmission information?
It means the copy shown is a fax confirmation page with the letter
as
content.
>
> I had applied to cross-examine the plaintiffs so that I could
settle
> these issues because it runs into the question of whether they
had
> deliberately schemed to get me to miss the session of 10
February
> when the dates for the hearing were fixed. It was also an
issue that
> the plaintiffs had canvassed during the hearing. But the
judge
> refused to allow me to call Mr Lee, Mr Goh and Mr Singh to the
stand.
Chee should have cross-examine the staff who handle the fax
and
arrange for the Feb 4th meeting. Those are the key persons to start
with.
>
> The plaintiffs' counsel also made an issue of the fact that I
had not
> mentioned my visiting Taiwan on my way to the US and my trip
to Hong
> Kong in August 2004 in my affidavit. The truth of the matter
is that
> my stopover in Taiwan on my way to the US was to give my
children a
> break in the long journey and for them and my wife to see my
in-laws.
This is more a trip to meet the in-laws.
>
> My trip to Hong Kong was an ARDA mission to assess the
political
> situation in the Chinese city. In other words, I was on
official
> business for the organization. Because of this ARDA would pay,
as it
> does for all of its volunteers, expenses for the trip. But
having to
> come back to Singapore from the US to attend a hearing and
then to
> return would have meant that I would have to pay the expenses
myself
> which I cannot afford.
>
> Besides, what do my stopover in Taiwan in February and my
visit to
> Hong Kong on 2-3 August have anything to do with 6 September
the
> date of the hearing which I have asked to be postponed. Mr
Singh was
> scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up with facts
that were
> wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. This was done purely
for the
> benefit of the local media which lapped everything up to
present
> as "facts" to the public.
It is a matter of whether Chee really did not have time to prepare
and
attend the court session or he was using other events as
excuse.
>
> After Taiwan I arrived in the US on 19 February, ahead on
my
> fellowship on 1 March. The reason is that I had to look for
housing,
> school for my eldest daughter, and so on. Mr Singh said that I
had
> left early and gave the impression that my fellowship started
in
> February 2004. Again he was saying this for the reporters
present
> because he knew full well that when one is going away for
several
> months and with young children, one would need to leave early
to take
> care of the logistical arrangements I mentioned.
Who pay for Chee's family members airfare to US and Taiwan,
his
daughter's school fee, and his wife medical/delivery expenses if
Chee
could not afford to fly back to Singapore as he claimed. What is
the
total amount?
>
> Following the completion of my fellowship, I stayed on in the
US
> because I had to complete some of the fellowship-related
assignments
> I had taken up while there as well as to obtain birth and
travel
> documents for our newborn which took several weeks to do.
Despite
> this, Mr Singh continued with his lies that I had deliberately
stayed
> in the US for a holiday to avoid the hearing.
>
> I left the US and arrived in Taiwan on 31 August. I had to
attend an
> ARDA meeting on 9 September. The meeting was fixed before I
came to
> learn of the hearing dates fixed for 6-8 September.
>
> It was not possible for me to return to Singapore for the
hearing
> because it would mean that I would miss the ARDA meeting
which
> involved members from several other countries coming to
Taipei.
> Besides, I could not leave my three children with my wife and
her
> parents as my in-laws were not in the best of health.
They could have returned to Singapore early or chose not leave
Spore
in the first place.
>
> Based on the following facts:
>
> - that I had asked the courts to hold off all proceedings
until after
> my return from my fellowship,
>
> - that the plaintiffs and the courts had arranged for a time
to set
> the hearing dates in my absence after I had informed them that
I was
> going to be away,
>
> - that the ARDA meeting on 9 September was fixed before I
eventually
> came to learn of the hearing dates,
Why Chee leave out details of when he knew of the Sept hearing
dates
and when he started fixing the ARDA meeting dates? Why he did
not
check his mails?
>
> is it unreasonable for me to ask the courts to postpone the
hearing?
> After all I was asking for just a few weeks, not months.
>
> How would the postponement of the hearing by a few weeks
prejudice
> the plaintiffs' case? If the courts had granted my request,
the
> hearing could have taken place and be disposed of in early
October
> 2004 at the very latest.
>
> I would then be able to cross-examine the very two people who
have
> accused me of defaming them and wanting close to one million
dollars
> in damages. I have already been denied of an open trial in the
case
> and for there to be some semblance of justice, I should be
able to
> participate in the hearing for assessment of damages.
>
> Without the benefit of the above closing arguments, however,
the
> judge went ahead and dismissed Dr Chee's application to have
the
> hearing reconvened. He said that he did not hear any
good
> explanations from the SDP secretary-general. How could he when
he
> denied Dr Chee the right to have time to prepare the
material?
>
> Now compare how the Straits Times reported the matter. At the
end of
> the report, Ms Chia wrote: "Dr Chee did not respond when given
the
> opportunity to do so, after which Justice Kan gave his
ruling." This
> is a lie. Dr Chee repeatedly stood up and challenged the judge
on his
> decision to not allow Dr Chee to prepare and present his
submissions.
>
>
> High Court dismisses Chee's application
> Straits Times
> Sue-Ann Chia
> 6 November 2004
>
>