Video: The Other Olympics From Al-Jazeera English channel's WITNESS,Part 1Part 2 IBAHRI corrects inaccurate comments of Press Sec to Minister for Law IBAHRI response to Wall Street Journal op-ed, 23 July 2008The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) would like to correct some inaccurate comments made in the opinion piece 'Singapore has an Independent Judiciary' (Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2008) by Ms S. Radha, Press Secretary to the Minister for Law, Singapore. The opinion piece was made in response to the Wall Street Journal's editorial 'Judging Singapore's Judiciary' (15 July 2008). (Jacob: I've posted these below)Ms Radha asserts that the IBAHRI’s report, Prosperity versus individual rights: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, contains "baseless" and 'vague' allegations about lack of impartiality and independence in the court’s consideration of defamation suits; and "errors of fact" about Supreme Court judges. However, as readers may see for themselves by accessing the report on our website, the observations made are based on comprehensive examples and evidence, and the 'errors of fact' she quotes are in fact misstatements of what the report actually says.The IBAHRI’s concern about defamation suits initiated by People’s Action Party (PAP) litigants is evidenced by detailed case studies, court reports and a list of the awarded damages made in such defamation cases (see page 60 of the report). This list indicates that damages awarded by the court to successful PAP litigants are many times the amount awarded in non-PAP litigant cases. Contrary to Ms Radha’s article, these actions have not all been initiated in response to ‘scurrilous allegations of corruption’, but have often been in response to relatively minor comments or claims made by opposition members or candidates, or respected international publications.Ms Radha tries to deflect criticism from our recommendation that Singapore should ‘put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles’ by stating that ‘there is no need…because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.’ The concern voiced in the report, however, (on page 52) was not about Supreme Court judges, but that ‘Magistrates and district judges…are rotated to various positions within the Legal Service…which appears to be…a breach of the separation of powers doctrine’. The report does not claim that Supreme Court judges are transferred in this way, and its main point on this important aspect of establishing the independence of the judiciary thus remains unaddressed.Ms Radha also states that the report denies that Supreme Court judges enjoy security of tenure until the age of 65. This is incorrect. On page 55, the report states that they do. However, the report expresses concern about those Supreme Court judges who remain in their positions after the age of 65, and are from then on in their positions at the will of the Prime Minister. The report notes the IBAHRI’s concerns about the lack of tenure for all other judges, including High Court judges.Singapore Has an Independent JudiciaryJuly 23, 2008Your editorial "Judging Singapore's Judiciary" (July 15) perpetuates the baseless allegations and errors of fact in the Report of the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute.The IBA Human Rights Institute's criticism of Singapore's judiciary is contradicted by the International Bar Association itself. Last year, IBA President Fernando Pombo said publicly that Singapore "has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law." You have suppressed this, and instead attributed the IBA Human Rights Institute's criticisms to the IBA, when the IBA President had stated the very opposite!You also repeat the vague allegations in the Institute's Report that defamation suits involving the ruling party lack "impartiality and/or independence." The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and anyone questioning the verdicts can analyze and examine the decisions properly. Yet the Report contains nothing to back these claims.Singapore ministers and government officials are held to the highest standards of probity and integrity. This has been recognized by international agencies like the Property and Environment Research Center and Transparency International. That is why investors put in billions of dollars into Singapore, and why Singapore is an oasis of prosperity and stability in Southeast Asia with one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world. Thus when scurrilous allegations of corruption are made, ministers and officials defamed will sue to clear their name. We see no virtue in becoming a society where anyone can freely publish untruths without having to back them up in court.Further, contrary to the Report, all Supreme Court judges in Singapore enjoy "security of tenure" until retirement at 65. There is also no need to "put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles" because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.Western newspapers, NGOs and human rights groups like the IBA's Human Rights Institute prescribe Western norms as the way for other countries to "join the ranks of modern democracies." But not every Western norm is suitable to all countries in the world. Singapore cannot allow those who carry no responsibility for Singapore's future to dictate its political and legal systems. Singaporeans know that they have a noncorrupt government and an independent judiciary. They live in one of the top five most transparent countries in the world, with the freedom to express their views, oppose the government and take part in free and fair elections. Singaporeans will choose for themselves the shape and norms for their society.S. RadhaPress Secretary to the Minister for LawSingaporeJudging Singapore's JudiciaryFROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIAJuly 15, 2008Lee Kuan Yew recently noted the International Bar Association's decision to "honor" Singapore by holding its annual conference there last year. We hope the former Prime Minister, now Minister Mentor, takes equal note of the IBA's latest assessment of the judiciary in Singapore.The IBA's human-rights institute issued a report last week on "human rights, democracy and the rule of law" in the city-state. Like numerous past observers, the IBA finds that Singapore limits political speech and assembly and exercises strict controls on the media.The 72-page report also describes "concerns about the objective and subjective independence and impartiality" of the judiciary. In cases involving litigants from the ruling People's Action Party or PAP interests, the IBA finds "concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence, which casts doubt on the decisions made in such cases."The IBA report is a good primer on Singapore's use of defamation cases against opposition politicians and the foreign press. It summarizes high-profile cases over the past 25 years against J. B. Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong and Chee Soon Juan. And it reviews defamation cases against foreign publications, including this newspaper and our sister publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, which currently is fighting defamation charges brought by Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.In a statement last week in response to the IBA report, the Law Ministry defended Singapore's legal system. "The cases brought by PAP members usually relate to scurrilous and completely untrue allegations of corruption made against them," it said. And, "It is also absurd to suggest that honorable and upright judges in commercial cases become compliant and dishonorable when dealing with defamation cases involving government ministers."The IBA report concludes with 18 recommendations, including abolishing defamation as a criminal offense and urging government officials to "stop initiating defamation claims for criticisms made in the course of political debate." It also calls for "security of tenure" for all judges and an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles.Singapore is unlikely to reform its political or judicial system anytime soon. But when the country is ready to join the ranks of modern democracies, the IBA's recommendations provide a good checklist of how to do so. Burmese activists face visa problems in Singapore The Singapore government's actions are very disturbing & disgusting but not surprising,Myanmar activists face visa problems in SingaporeSINGAPORE, Aug 8 (Reuters) - At least three Myanmar activists were forced to leave Singapore after authorities decided not to renew their visas in an apparent attempt to stop the group's pro-democracy work, another Myanmar activist said.Myo Myint Maung, a spokesman for the group, told Reuters on Friday that six Myanmar nationals are having trouble with their visas and three, including a student, were forced to leave Singapore recently after their various visas were not renewed.The remaining three are Singapore permanent residents, which means they can stay in the city-state if they choose to. But they will not be allowed to re-enter Singapore should they leave as their re-entry permits have not been extended.All six were involved in an illegal protest last year against Myanmar's ruling military junta. Though not charged, they were let off with a warning. Protests are rare in Singapore and gatherings of four or more people require police permission.Myo said the treatment of the activists was not justified."We are very puzzled. I cannot think of any reasonable explanation for their decision not to renew it," he said.Singapore's home ministry said in a statement that the right of a foreigner to work and stay in Singapore "is not a matter of entitlement by political demand"."Foreigners who work or live here are expected to at least respect the law and local sensitivities in Singapore," said a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Home Affairs.According to the Singapore immigration website, the process to renew a re-entry permit into Singapore for a permanent resident only takes 30 minutes."It is usually a one-day process, but it has been pending for more than a month for some," Myo said.Singapore is home to around 100,000 Myanmar nationals, the pro-government Straits Times newspaper reported earlier this year. (Reporting by Melanie Lee; Editing by David Fogarty)Its mentioned in the above report that All six were involved in an illegal protest last year against Myanmar's ruling military junta. Its quite likely this is the "illegal protest last year", Video: Inside Burma - Land of Fear Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the '88 uprising in Burma. This is a 1996 film by John Pilger. 08.08.08 is not only the Beijing Olympics and Toto $8 Million Draw I signed this joint statement, from the Burma Partnership, as an individual even though it was a call for organisations to do so. My days of being in an organisation is in the past. ;-) Democracy in Burma 20 years on: We won’t forget, we won’t give up - Upload a Document to Scribd Read this document on Scribd: Democracy in Burma 20 years on: We won’t forget, we won’t give up Aug 9, 1965 - Aug 9, 2008 -......... This is a speech on patriotism by Barack Obama which he delivered on 30 June, 2008. Its a very inspiring speech. Alot of what he said can also be applied, and has much relevance, to Singapore as we approach our 43rd year of independence on Aug 9. The selected passages below are from the speech. Full transcript here.In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic.None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I'm referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That's my idea of America.I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America's ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one.Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They've defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: "When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support." Has our government received information of an imminent threat? If you think the title of this post sounds alarmist, you should read this news report from CNA.I can understand such big events will have major security in place. But I don't recall reading or seeing such news reports, in the past, just days before a big event like the NDP, with very vivid language such as,Police and Civil Defence officers said they are on full standby in case of any attacks on the parade grounds or elsewhere in Singapore.And depending on the nature of the incident, they may order a mass evacuation.Where needed, paramedics and doctors will also be called in. In case of a chemical attack, a bus can transform into a personnel decontamination vehicle that can also serve as a mass casualty ambulance.It could probably be that the authorities just want to reassure the public and this is just routine especially in this day and age.I'm not an expert but i've read quite a bit (i still do), on issues related to terrorism, from different sources, eg. news reports, books and articles by experts and those who have had dealings & experience with terrorism issues, etc. These are all publicly available material for anyone whose interested. And one of the things described in these material is how the public is warned beforehand, via the media, of any imminent threat/attack. The language used in such reports are especially very stark, vivid and specific.When i read the CNA report, it just made me wonder if the government has received any credible information about an imminent threat or impending attack. Of course, its not my intention to be an alarmist nor to create panic or any such nonsense.I'm just thinking out loud and worried for peoples' safety. So tell me, how much do HDB flats actually cost?? I think i should start some sort of a series titled What are the actual....??. Here's another issue. This time its about the cost of building HDB flats in which 80-90% of Singaporeans live. Have a look at these letters published in the Straits Times Forum....July 22, 2008Affordable HDB flats: Costings don't add upI REFER to last Wednesday's letter from the HDB, 'How HDB flats are priced affordably'. It mentioned that a new four-room flat costs close to $300,000 to develop, taking into account land, building and other costs. It did not give details of how each cost is calculated.I remember a similar Forum letter on July 12, 2004, asking the same questions. It was mentioned that one HDB contractor built flats in Bukit Batok for $50,400 each in 2000.Even now, factoring in higher construction cost, I estimate building cost is $100,000 to $150,000. That leaves nearly $150,000 to $200,000 for land and other costs. A single block of flats typically has 100 units. That means land (and other costs) on which a single block of flats stands costs $15 to $20 million. Can it cost so much?For $15 to $20 million, what kind of property can one buy? In District 9 or 10, one can buy property up to 20,000 sq ft.So is the HDB willing to release details on actual construction costs, say in the Punggol or Sengkang area?Steven YeoAug 1, 2008HDB flats: Low figure is building costs aloneI REFER to the letter, 'Affordable HDB flats: Costings don't add up' by Mr Steven Yeo (July 22).Mr Yeo cited a Forum page letter published on July 12, 2004, where the writer gave the construction cost of a new flat as $50,400.This does not give the full picture of how much it costs to build flats. As HDB explained in its reply of July 23, 2004, the figures cited relate only to building works. The total construction cost of flats includes other costs such as infrastructure, piling works, lift installation, consultancy and project management, financing and purchase of land.We have explained before in previous letters that the total cost of development in the current market is about $300,000 for a four-room flat in Punggol-Sengkang New Town. This is significantly higher than the subsidised price of a four-room flat in Punggol-Sengkang sold by HDB at about $200,000 to $260,000.Kee Lay Cheng (Ms)Deputy Director (Marketing and Projects)for Director (Estate Administration and Property)Housing and Development Board This issue has been around for a very long time and for which the government hasn't adequately and fully replied to. If they did, the question wouldn't be around for so long, would it now. Is there anything to hide?Its not so difficult to give a breakdown of the costs, unless of course, they fear revealing them and letting the public debate about it. Don't tell me giving a detailed breakdown would endanger Singapore's national security or something along that line. Errr...right.Its really quite pathetic that, as citizens, we have to practically beg for such things. WHAT are the ACTUAL numbers?? Back in Feb 08, it was reported "Singapore is losing about 1,000 of its best and brightest every year and the numbers are growing, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has said.." and "Citing figures of Singaporeans who gave up their citizenship and took out their savings and CPF funds, he said this meant 'losing about, at the top end, 1,000 a year, which is about - if you take the top 30 per cent of the population - about four or five per cent".Last week, it was reported that according to DPM Wong "In the last three years, an average of 1,000 Singaporeans gave up their citizenship each year".So, is the MM and DPM citing the same figures?? If that's the case, does it mean ALL these 1000 are Singapore's "best and brightest"?? If its not, does it then mean they are citing two different figures, meaning about 2000 give up their citizenship??For a government that collects so much information on its citizens, it strains credulity that they don't have the actual numbers. Al-Jazeera Video: Soaring prices hit Singapore's poor I-S magazine article on Chee Soon Juan The following section Doctored Image about Chee Soon Juan is part of an article in the latest edition of I-S magazine which features two other personalities, Steven Lim & Victor Khoo. You can read the full article The Unusual Suspects here.Doctored ImageHe’s been called a liar, a psychopath and everything in between. But honestly, how much do we know of the real Dr. Chee Soon Juan? As leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), the image of the 46-year-old neuropsychologist has suffered no end at the hands of a one-eyed media. In fact, the father of three has been caricatured to such an extent that as we walked up to his office in a terraced shop house off Upper Thomson Road, we thought we’d be in for some ride with a (hitherto portrayed) dour, schizoid personality—one who’d be easily prone to ranting against the establishment and the ruling party.But what you see (on TV, in the political pages of the national press) is certainly not what you’ll get with Dr. Chee, who in our hour-long interview came across as erudite, urbane, articulate, smart, focused,eloquent and yes, very normal—debunking his media-projected persona as a stone-cold megalomaniac.“Would anyone like a drink?” he asks with all the grace of an exemplary host before sitting down to speak with us. As a youth without prior political leanings, Dr. Chee first became politicized in the late 1970s when the graduate mother’s scheme (where women who held degrees were encouraged to bear more children, whereas lower educated ones were told to stop at two) was first introduced.“I became very concerned that such a distasteful policy was being openly encouraged, but I soon left to study in the US (in the early 1980s) and I thought this ‘way of thinking’ would soon pass,” he says. “But there was no discernable change (in policies and attitudes) when I returned, and I soon joined the opposition.“My main aim then was (and still is) to fight unjust laws in the country and be an advocate for free speech. It is unconstitutional to be denied the opportunity to speak in public.”Dr. Chee continues to fight charges of speaking in public without a permit, an offence that has already seen him incarcerated on several occasions (he’s been in the slammer a total of seven times), as well as an earlier incident in 1993 which which saw Dr. Chee getting sacked from the National University of Singapore, where he was lecturing, for allegedly misappropriating funds—consequences which probably solidified his rebellious persona even more.“The media were a lot more balanced when I first entered politics in the early 1990s; they were reasonably fair in their reporting of what I had to say,” Dr Chee says. “But now, well, now they’ve gone too far; not only have they become way too personal in their attacks, they consistently misrepresent what I stand for.“Which is that I’m out to do Singapore in; that I do not have the country’s best interest at heart. That is the biggest myth that’s constantly being perpetuated about me. Period. When all I stand for is for a more open, tolerant society; to respect one another’s differences and to move (the country) with the times.”In addition, he has also been lampooned as an eccentric oddball. He laments, “Such is the nature of the beast. All these caustic attacks don’t even bother me anymore; you just have to steel yourself and roll with the punches.“You know, it’s very easy to do the ‘accepted’ and popular things, but for real change to come about, one has to take a firm stand on one’s beliefs and see it all the way through.“I can take heart that more are coming forward to speak up and speak out, but I stress that we advocate change in a non-violent way—with a capital ‘N’.”When asked whether he had any regrets he says, “Definitely not. This is the life I have chosen for myself and I actually spend many a fruitful day writing books and papers, selling our party newsletter on the street and engaging with all sorts of people via the SDP portal (www.yoursdp.org).”One doesn’t have to agree or disagree with his politics to come away with the conclusion that he certainly isn’t the firebrand that the media has regularly made him out to be. The impression we left with was that of an articulate, caring family man who dotes on his three well-adjusted young children, and one who has made untold sacrifices in the line of his work.The SDP chief hopes to return to his beloved world of academia one day, but not before the “job is done,” he says. JBJ's interview with Malaysia's Star Armed for a fresh battleBy NELSON BENJAMIN, 27 July 08At 82, Singapore’s veteran opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam has overcome the odds and a bankruptcy suit to continue his battle. Armed with a new party, his political convictions are as strong as ever.VETERAN Singapore opposition figure J.B. Jeyaretnam created history in 1981 when he became the first opposition MP in the island republic. The former magistrate, regarded now as Singapore's old political warrior, has paid a high price for his political convictions: he has had to sell off his properties and peddle his books along five-foot ways to help raise over S$1.5mil (RM3.45mil) to pay for at least a dozen defamation law suits against him during his 30-year political career.The 82-year-old has now formed a new party, the Reform Party, and he hopes to continue with what he is doing as long as he is strong and healthy. (Note: See here and here about the Reform Party)You were prohibited from active politics between 2001 and last year due to a defamation suit against you. How was it for you during this period?I was angry, I suppose. The reason was obvious, as the reason for commencing bankruptcy procedures against me was to take me out of Parliament. I tried to resist but I did not succeed. As a bankrupt I was not allowed to leave the country without getting permission from the official assignee. Even to come to Johor Baru over the weekends, I had to make an application. So there was a complete restriction on my travel. Apart from that, there were all the other little things, like you cannot have a bank account when you are a bankrupt. I was not even allowed to assist other candidates in the elections. They said I was not to go anywhere near an election rally. I was not allowed to go and speak. I was not to go and even assist any candidate because they said that was election activity and as a bankrupt I cannot do that.How did you raise the final amount to settle your defamation suit?In the end my two sons bailed me out. The lion's share came from them. There were some small sums from others. This is because Singaporeans, for some reason or other, are frightened to give any money. Because of the climate of fear, Singaporeans did not give me much money although many sympathised with me. Most of the sales of my two books went towards my living expenses. My first book titled Make it right for Singapore is a compilation of all my speeches in parliament. The other, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, was after the 1997 elections. These books kept my body and soul together; they gave me something to do as besides writing them, I also sold them by the five-foot way in several areas three times a week together with a friend who has been with me since my time in the Workers Party.Many Singaporeans were hoping you would contest in the 2006 elections. How much were you short of settling your bankruptcy amount?That was my desperate hope. If the courts had agreed to fix the amount, I could have raised it. This is why I was disappointed with the courts. If the courts had fixed the amount and I knew what I had to raise, then I might have raised it through my sons. I do not know for sure whether it was a delaying tactic.Have you started practising since the bankruptcy order was lifted?I am doing one or two civil cases at the moment. I am operating on my own from my office off South Bridge Road. The person who was selling books is working with me now. I am here (Singapore) during weekdays.The first thing you did after paying up your bankruptcy amount was to register a new party, the Reform Party. What was the main aim behind the formation of the party?The main thing is to restructure the way we are governed in Singapore. Call it a “system” if you like. At the moment, the way we are governed is we have the executive (the ruling People's Action Party) at the top. And it's a law unto itself. The executive makes decisions and policies without any consultation with the people. And what is worrying is that there's no check on the executive, partly because Parliament is in the control of the PAP.And even now, with just two opposition members in parliament, Parliament passes laws and abrogates the powers of the court. The courts cannot enquire into the merits of anyone detained without trial. A number of decisions made by ministers are kept outside the courts' jurisdiction, especially decisions affecting peoples' lives. So the courts are not protecting the rights of the citizens.There is this question of freedom of speech in assembly. The constitution grants it, but government says no. Elections in Singapore are not free and clear, as there is no election commission in Singapore. Parliament is no longer a body that is separate, independent and able to control the executive. This is what I think is the urgent priority for Singapore.Many people retire by the age of 82 but you seem to be eager to get back in parliament this year. Why?I do expect to get back in parliament. But it's not for personal power but because I genuinely feel sorry for the people in Singapore. I am talking about the dispossessed, the underprivileged people, which make up a huge number. I am not talking about our bankers and wealthy people who are perhaps not interested in human rights. There is quite a bit of poverty in Singapore, even though the world does not seem to think so because of the propaganda machinery of the Government.So you have no plans to retire soon?It depends on my health, but I thank God for giving me health and strength. In that sense I owe it to Him to do something.Are you not tired of being in politics since you started in 1971 with the Workers Party (WP)?At times I feel tired and say to myself: “Don't you think you should give up now?” But that is only momentary. It is followed by the thought that if I have started on a job and as long as I have the health and strength, I will have to go on with it. And there are people who look to you especially when you walk the streets of Singapore. It is just my conviction that when things are wrong, and if there is anything I can do to put them right, then I should do that. I think every citizen should feel like that. It is a citizen's duty.Being in the opposition in Singapore all these years has cost you dearly and you even had to sell off your properties. Any regrets?I did not have many properties but I had to sell a bungalow in a very fashionable area in Singapore to pay the judgement obtained by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Having sold that, three years later I bought a small apartment, and then I had to sell that too. All in, I had easily about 12 to 13 suits to pay off. Some people say I was a fool. All I can say is I do not regret it because, to me, life is not all about making money and acquiring wealth. Life is doing something for the people around you.What do you think about the recent political tsunami in Malaysia?It is good that there is a strong opposition in Parliament. This is what I am standing up for in Singapore. I want that for Singapore too.Do you think such a political tsunami is possible in Singapore?You never know, especially if Singaporeans take to heart what has happened in Malaysia. It is good to have a strong opposition.As you can see, former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is widely regarded as the person who united the opposition. Are you planning to play the same role?This talk about uniting the opposition parties in Singapore is not new. It has been talked about for many years. When I was in the WP, we managed to unite the Barisan Sosialis and another political party into one party. But before you can unite into a group, you must have similarities in ideals, objectives and values. And as I have said, even the WP now does not share my objective. Neither do the other opposition parties. So I do not see how we can really talk about coming together as one party.In the Malaysian elections, blogs, SMS, and the Internet played an important role in getting the message across to the voters. What do you think?It goes without saying. We cannot ignore the value and importance of the Internet in Singapore. If you access the blogs in Singapore, you will see the debate that is being carried out. So, of course, it will be foolish of us if we do not resort to the Internet to convey our messages to the people.Many Singaporeans feel that the PAP has developed the country and, as such, there is no need for an opposition. What do you think about this?Those who say this have swallowed the PAP's propaganda. No government, anywhere in the world, can be so good that there is no need for an opposition. It is only in dictatorships where one man rules the country without an opposition. And I differ (from the view) that PAP has done a lot for Singapore.When you come to measure a country, you do not just look at the roads, the buildings, and the services provided. What you will be looking at is the quality of the peoples’ lives, whether they are allowed to live as human beings with dignity.Singapore ranked at the bottom in a survey carried out to rank peoples’ happiness. The quality of life is poor. It is no good boasting about your efficiency, boasting about your airport, or boasting about anything else when the people are not happy.Many say you are in constant loggerheads with the PAP and especially with the Lee family maybe because you have a personal grudge against Lee Kuan Yew.This is a load of nonsense. I am opposed to the PAP policies not because I have something against Lee personally. But he happens to be the head of the PAP, so people try and equate my dissatisfaction with the PAP with some personal animosity against Lee Kuan Yew. I am clearly opposed to all that the PAP stands for. I am against the system, not the person.Are your sons into politics?No. They are not joining me and they have not joined any political party. But that does not mean they are not interested in political affairs and at the moment, I do not hope for them to succeed me. Propaganda movie in the making?? A government owned, run and/or heavily influenced Singapore media company making a feature film titled 1965.According to the TODAY report below,"It is a film that talks about the people who founded Singapore, about our Minister Mentor and the political people who helped make Singapore what it is today".Right...now let me put 2 and 2 together...A government owned, run and/or heavily influenced Singapore media company making a feature film titled 1965 "about the people who founded Singapore, about our Minister Mentor and the political people who helped make Singapore what it is today."Hahahahahahaha....man that's a good one! I didn't realise it was to be a slapstick!Independence day: The Singapore editionWednesday • July 23, 2008MEDIACORP Raintree Pictures is setting its sights on local politics — at least on film. The company behind comedies I Not Stupid and the upcoming Money No Enough 2 is currently working on a film called 1965.This was revealed by Raintree Pictures managing director Daniel Yun during an interview on Channel NewsAsia.“We’ve been nurturing a film called 1965. It is a film that talks about the people who founded Singapore, about our Minister Mentor and the political people who helped make Singapore what it is today,” Yun said during the interview.Yun added: “I think many people will be wondering why we are making a film like that, if we will be tripping over OB markers, if we are going somewhere that’s more sensitive, we’ll tread carefully. But the more important thing is to get it right.“Doing the right thing means you need to start doing things that are not so easy, like making a political film or a film with political content. I think the Singapore environment and system is mature enough to want something like that.”Today understands that the movie is still in its initial stages. Yun said they already have a “script” but have yet to finalise the cast and director. The planned 1965 movie will be a feature film as, he added, “Raintree doesn’t make documentaries”. JBJ's open letter to Prime Minister Got this from uncleyap's post. Click on the images to read from a larger version, Our biggest struggle is not against the PAP, it is against what the PAP has done to our minds That phrase in the post header says it all, doesn't it. Sums up quite alot in one phrase. It comes from a SDP article....No credible people in the opposition?20 july 08Of course the PAP has credible people within its ranks. With a former judge, a mathematician, a senior legal officer, top lawyers, medical doctors, economists, academics and senior journalists, who can gainsay that the ruling party is well endowed in the credibility department?What about the opposition? According to some “poll watchers” Singapore's opposition has some ways to go before it can match the PAP. And as long as it cannot do this, electoral success will be elusive. (See report below)Indeed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew avers that all he is trying to do with his hardball politics is to force the opposition to gather candidates whose competence and integrity can compete with that found in such abundance in his party.Agreeing, Professor Eugene Tan says that the opposition needs to work towards gathering a “brain trust” and build up a “government-in-waiting.”Even Workers' Party Chairman Sylvia Lim concurs, saying that the opposition needs to “focus on getting credible people elected into Parliament.”Of course Mr Lee, Professor Tan and Ms Lim are absolutely right about electing only “credible” people into parliament. Which Singaporean wants to elect a bunch of riff-raff into the legislature?Unfortunately, the three miss the point (Mr Lee deliberately, of course).It may surprise readers that the long list of high-calibre professionals mentioned in the opening paragraph does not, in fact, belong to the PAP; it belongs to the opposition.From Drs Poh Soo Kai, Lee Siew Choh, and Lim Hock Siew (medical professionals) to Mr David Marshall (our first prime minister) to Mr Jeyaretnam (former judge) to Mr Francis Seow (former solicitor-general) to Mr Tang Liang Hong (senior lawyer) to Mr Chia Thye Poh (mathematician) to Mr Said Zahari (journalist), Singapore had men of distinction serving in the opposition, men whose moral and intellectual calibre take no backseat to anyone in the PAP.Even today, the opposition has no dearth of professionals, lawyers, PhD holders and medical professionals in its camp. Many more than measure up to the Lim Swee Says, Mah Bow Tans, and Wong Kan Sengs.Admittedly, there is a distinction between the PAP men and those serving in the opposition: the ones in the latter group are not motivated by money.Another difference is that while the credibility of the PAP folks need Viagra-like boosts from the media they control, oppositionists are persecuted in every manner conceivable. Credible Singaporeans, after joining the opposition and given the Straits-Times treatment, very quickly become not credible.Not true? Think International Bar Association (IBA). The organisation was good and lauded by Mr Lee Kuan Yew because unlike other Western liberal NGOs, it understood what the PAP was about. That is, until it opined that the Lee system needed reform.Overnight the IBA was relegated to the ranks of those out to destroy Singapore and therefore no longer credible. Never mind the fact that Mr Lee made absolutely no sense and that he was his usual disingenuous self. What is disconcerting is that no one dared to tell him to his face what he really is, an old autocrat in whose mind intellectual decency matters little.In the same vein, Mr Lee and those who can't think differently continue to parrot the untruth that the opposition cannot attract “credible” Singaporeans. How can the opposition attract good people when we measure goodness according to the Book of Lee?And for goodness' sake, how do we define it? Are paper qualifications the be-all and end-all of what constitute good national leaders? Do principles, passion and personal beliefs not count at all in the make-up of our ministers and parliamentarians? What is the benefit of having row after row of MPs whose "competence" are measured by whether they graduated with first- or second-class honours, but who care more about what their party boss thinks than about how policies they pass affect the people they say they serve?Society must not continue to allow the PAP's conceptions unchallenged. More important, the opposition must have the intellectual capacity to, before accepting the notion that we cannot attract good candidates, examine whether this premise is, in the first place, true.Remember, our biggest struggle is not against the PAP, it is against what the PAP has done to our minds. Videos: Reform Party inauguration dinner These are videos of the Reform Party inauguration dinner. You can read toc's report on the event here. Video: Tak Boleh Tahan press statement by Chia Ti Lik Go to Singapore Democrats for more reports & updates Duh. On 4 June, i wrote about the laughable comments made by Singapore's Law Minister. I am still laughing.The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, or IBAHRI for short, has just released a report called Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore.This is what IBA had to say in a statement introducing the report,In a report released today, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore. The report, Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, makes 18 recommendations (pages 67-68), which the IBAHRI urges the Singapore Government to implement as a matter of priority.‘As one of the world’s most successful economies, Singapore should be a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and should now have the confidence and maturity to recognise that this would be complementary, not contradictory, to its future prosperity,’ said Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA). ‘The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.’The IBAHRI report examines Singapore’s record on a range of human rights issues identified by the IBAHRI as a priority. This includes freedom of expression (for example, the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities, and restrictions on freedom of the press and the internet), the independence of the judiciary (there have been allegations of executive influence), and freedom of assembly.Investigations for the report began in the lead-up to the IBA’s 2007 Annual Conference in Singapore. Strong debate between the government and its critics took place during the IBA’s inaugural Rule of Law Day; an open public forum on human rights which was the first such discussion at an international conference in Singapore.Emilio Cárdenas, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI, stated: ‘The IBAHRI has conducted a very extensive review in preparing this report, and has sought the views of all the major stakeholders concerned, including the Singapore Government and the Singapore Law Society. The report is unprecedented in its efforts to understand, respond to, and reflect the views of all sides to the debate.’So i suppose now, the ruling party will want to sue IBAHRI for defamation while the Singapore judiciary will want to find IBAHRI in contempt of court. Duh.Here are two news articles about the report,Singapore should free courts from govt influence-IBASINGAPORE, July 9 (Reuters) - Singapore should free its courts from any government influence and elevate human rights standards to international levels, the world's largest legal association said.The International Bar Association's human rights arm expressed concern over the limitations of freedom of expression and the independence of Singapore courts in a 72-page report released late on Tuesday.The global legal association noted that while the city-state had a good reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve members of the ruling People's Action Party , when it came to matters regarding PAP litigants "there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality".The London-based body of more than 30,000 member lawyers also said that while Singapore fared well in commercial and economic rankings, it fared poorly in press freedom rankings, which it said was a concern given that a free press can generate important dialogue on issues."Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest order," the report said."The International Bar Association Human Rights Institute strongly encourages Singapore to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner, and to take steps to implement international standards of human rights," it said.The Singapore government did not immediately comment.DEFAMATION SUITSSingapore, where the IBA held its annual conference last year, is among the most developed nations in Asia, with the second highest GDP per capita after Japan.However, media and human rights groups such as Amnesty International have criticized the government for restricting freedom of expression and using defamation lawsuits to financially cripple political opponents.In a list of 18 recommendations, the IBA urged the Singapore government to ratify the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ease restrictions on the media and ensure that its courts are free from government influence.IBA executive director said in a statement Singapore should be a leader in human-rights, and its advancement would be complementary to the city-state's future prosperity.The IBA also noted that some publications, including The Economist and the Financial Times, have paid out-of-court settlements to avoid defamation lawsuits. The government says these lawsuits are needed to protect its reputation.The legal body suggested the government set limits on defamation payouts in cases initiated by government officials. (Reporting by Melanie Lee, editing by Neil Chatterjee and Bill Tarrant)Singapore falls short on rights: lawyers' groupSINGAPORE (AFP) - - Despite its impressive economic development, Singapore fails to meet international standards for political and human rights and there are concerns about the independence of its judiciary, an association of lawyers said.The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute identified a number of areas in which Singapore fell far short of international norms, said the association's executive director Mark Ellis."In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics," he said in a statement released late Tuesday in London.The rights institute also issued 18 recommendations, which it said Singapore's government should implement urgently.The group has published a 72-page report on the issue, several months after the IBA held its annual convention in Singapore. The association represents 30,000 lawyers globally."Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest order," the report said, calling human rights universal and indivisible.The IBA's rights institute "strongly encourages Singapore to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner, and to take steps to implement international standards of human rights throughout Singapore."It called for Singapore to take its place as a regional leader on human rights, democracy and rule of law, as well as in business and economic development.Singapore holds the rotating chair of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, whose new charter calls for establishment of a regional human rights body.The IBA report said the cases of opposition politicians J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan illustrate concerns over the use of defamation laws to stifle political opposition and expression.J.B. Jeyaretnam, 82, a lawyer, was disbarred when declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), including a former prime minister.Bankrupts are not allowed to run for political office, but last year he cleared his bankruptcy, and has since announced his involvement with a new political party.Chee, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, was declared bankrupt after failing to pay libel damages to Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and another former prime minister over remarks made in 2001.Chee and his party are awaiting a judge's decision on damages against them in a separate defamation case, filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew."It certainly appears that Dr Chee has been made a target by the Singapore government, and that their criticism of him has gone far beyond a reasonable standard," the IBA wrote.It said the Singapore judiciary had a good international reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve the interests of PAP members or their associates."However, in cases involving PAP litigants or PAP interests, there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence," it said.The report expressed concern about "limitations on free assembly" in the city-state, and said the Law Society was not fulfilling its mandate to speak out on law reform issues.Law Society president Michael Hwang told AFP his group could not yet comment because it had only just received the IBA report.Government spokesmen were also not immediately able to react.At the IBA convention last October, Lee Kuan Yew responded to allegations that his country ranked low in matters of press freedom, saying Singaporeans were free to read whatever they wanted.He also said Singapore was built on the rule of law and did not tolerate corruption. This meant defamation action may be taken against those who impute dishonesty to government officials, in order to clear any doubts, he said. Reform Party registration approved; Inauguration dinner on 11 July I was notified of the approval by the chairman of the Reform Party, Ng Teck Siong. I've known him and J B Jeyaretnam for a number of years.Back in April 2001, when I was in Think Centre, I helped to organise the Save JBJ rally at Yio Chu Kang stadium. In fact, i was one of the speakers. It was a nerve-wracking first-time experience speaking in front of thousands. It was a historic event also because it was the first, non-election political rally since the PAP came to power. Here's a photo from that day,That's me with the goatee, sitting in between J B Jeyaretnam and Ng Teck Siong. The pink jeans and red shoes belong to James Gomez. Gandhi Ambalam of the SDP is the one with his hand on his chin along with another member of SDP. More photos here.In a comment for a blogpost by sgpolitics, Ng Teck Siong had this to say about the upcoming inauguration dinner,If any supporters wish to attend our inauguration dinner on the 11th July, 2008, Please contac: Ng Teck Siong on H/p No. 91179350 or Amy Lui H/p No. 98476900.According to uncleyap's post,Date : 11.July.2008 Friday, 1900Hr. atThe Reform Party Inauguration DinnerThe Fortunate RestaurantBlk 181, Toa Payoh Centeral2nd Level (Near National Library)@S$30 per person or @S$300 per table of 10For bookings please contact party treasurer:M/S Amy Lui h/p 83517336Here's a media report about the approval,Singapore approves new opposition political partySINGAPORE, June 19 (Reuters) - Singapore has approved the formation of a new opposition party, giving once-bankrupt political veteran J.B. Jeyaretnam a shot at contesting the city-state's next general elections. Jeyaretnam, 82, said on Thursday that his political party, the Reform Party, was approved on Tuesday, two months after his official application was submitted.Jeyaretnam was the first opposition member to break the ruling party's grip on parliament 27 years ago, but he was unable to contest the 2006 general elections after he was made bankrupt in 2001 for failing to pay S$265,000 in defamation damages to then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.He was discharged from bankruptcy in May last year and announced his return to politics in April this year."I am over the moon," Jeyaretnam told Reuters, adding that he will hold the position of secretary-general in the new party.The Reform Party, which promises to challenge the fundamentals of the Singapore political system, will enable Jeyaretnam to contest general elections due by 2011.Singapore's three main opposition parties hold little power and often complain of poor access to mainstream media.The People's Action Party has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965. It won 82 of 84 seats in May 2006 elections and has never lost more than four seats in any election.(Reporting by Melanie Lee; Editing by Neil Chatterjee and Jerry Norton)These are videos of the press conference on Apr 18, 08 to introduce the Reform Party, You've got till 19 June 0216hrs (Singapore time) to download Firefox 3 and help set a world record! I just downloaded Firefox 3 and even got a certificate for helping to set a world record!! Click the banner to find out more and download it! ;-) Help set a world record on 17 June by downloading Firefox 3 Its been about 4 years since i've been using Firefox. That's almost from the start of the firefox explosion!Tomorrow, 17 june, sees the release of Firefox 3.Help to set a world record by downloading it within this 24hr period.I just hope my damn PC doesn't shut-down on me again!!Updated 17 june: Download day starts on 18 june, wed, 0100hrs Singapore time. For those in different time zones, click here. Press statement by Singapore Dissident I got this press statement by Gopalan Nair aka Singapore Dissident from this report,Gopalan Nair / Press Statement / 11 June 2008I am an American citizen and a Singaporean by birth and have always been concerned about the welfare of Singaporeans and Singapore.I have been a Singapore political opposition supporter and politician from 1980 to 1991, a member of the Workers Party. I contested the 1988 and 1991 Singapore general elections under the Workers Party ticket, the former in Tiong Bahru and the latter at Bukit Merah.I believe as a human being, it is my right and my duty under the constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be able to speak free as a free man and to state what I have seen and heard. This benefits Singaporeans and the world at large. If I did not say what I saw, I would in fact be hiding the truth.This is what I did. It was never my intention to malign or cause distress to anyone and if the words that I had used had this effect, I withdraw them and apologize. But as far as the contents of my blog post; as to the events that occurred during the 3 days in court, it is an accurate observation which I have stated under my right as a free man.Even though I left for the United States in 1991, I have throughout my stay in the US been closely monitoring the political situation in Singapore and writing about it in my blog the Singapore Dissident, even though as an American citizen, I could have, like countless other overseas Singaporeans completely ignored Singapore.As a blogger on human rights and the rights of human beings around the world, my efforts are directed to the plight of human beings who are denied their human rights and how I can expose the injustices they suffer. Not only Singaporeans but also every human being is my concern but as I am a Singaporean by birth, naturally I am more concerned with the plight of Singaporeans.Today, not only the West but every country including ASEAN and Singapore is seen to move towards more human rights, as seen by human rights issues becoming more prominent in ASEAN and other Asian countries. This is evidenced by organs such as the Law Society of Singapore, and other organizations becoming more concerned with human rights affairs. The Law Society of Singapore has recently set up a human rights committee confirming the great interest in this area.In the US where I come from, the judiciary just as any other government or official body is open to criticism and they accept it as necessary for the advancement and improvement of the administration of justice.My blog was written as a message to the world about my views of matters of public interest. I have been accused of sending Emails to Judge Belinda Ang and others but this is not true. I did not at anytime send any Emails to Judge Belinda Ang or anyone else as far as this incident is concerned. The police had seized my notebook containing my Email password and my blog access.In the Lee Kuan Yew vs. Dr. Chee Soon Juan et al, case, the assessment of damages against Dr. Chee was going to be heard between May 26 2008 to May 28 2008 in the High Court in Singapore, I made arrangements to come to Singapore to attend the hearing. I am a Singapore patriot at heart and whatever I have done and do as regards my activities relating the future of Singapore is because I care for Singapore and Singaporeans. I worry about the future of Singapore and Singaporeans and am always on the lookout to see where and how I can be of assistance for the welfare and interest of Singaporeans.In Singapore I attended the said hearing at the High Court as an observer in the gallery from May 26 2008 to May 28 2008 attending every hearing entirely.During the High Court hearing, I found Judge Belinda Ang to be completely unfair and prejudicial to the interests of Dr. Chee, Chee Siok Chin and the SDP. Almost every question put by Dr. Chee, Chee Siok Chin and Ravi on behalf of the SDP were disallowed and each and every question put up by the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew and his son were invariably allowed. Almost every objection raised by the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew was sustained, keeping in mind that the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew and son, objected to almost every question that Dr. Chee and company raised.To state plainly, Dr. Chee and his company was denied the right to cross-examine the Plaintiffs in any meaningful way. In fact we could go even further and say that he and Siok Chin were denied the right to cross-examine Lee and Son almost entirely. In fact if Dr. Chee managed to put any questions to Lee and Son, it was over the refusal of Judge Belinda Ang to allow the questions, so much so that Judge Belinda Ang had to repeatedly prevent Dr. Chee and Siok Chin from conducting any meaningful cross examination.My honest observation of the entire 3 days left me in no doubt at all that this Judge was clearly unfair towards Dr. Chee and Siok Chin and she did not appear to conduct herself as an impartial judge in court sitting in judgment between the parties.Having seen this, there was a compelling need for me to tell the world what I saw, and not publicizing this would be denying the right of Singaporeans to know the truth of what happened in court during the 3 said days; and it was also necessary for me as a human being, to make it public and to the world what this court actually was, since they would not have had the luxury of being in court during the 3 days.For some background to this case, read my two posts here and here.These are two media reports on today's events,US blogger called Singapore judges 'corrupt': indictmentSINGAPORE, June 12, 2008 (AFP) - A US-based blogger accused of calling Singapore judges "corrupt" could face up to a year in jail, according to charges filed Thursday.It was the second charge filed this month against Gopalan Nair, a former Singaporean lawyer who is now a US citizen, for his alleged comments about the judiciary.Nair, 58, was in court to hear the latest allegation against him. He is charged with insulting Supreme Court Justice Lai Siu Chiu in an email on March 17, 2006.The email said Lai has "no shame" and that judges "are selling their souls and their conscience for money," according to a court document."Your Singapore judges, including Lai, are corrupt judges," the document cited his email as saying.Nair allegedly sent the email on the day Lai sentenced opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan to a one-day jail term and fined him for contempt of court.Earlier this month, Nair was charged with insulting another judge, Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean.Court documents in that case allege he sent an email accusing Ang of "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore's founding father) and his son (the current premier) and carrying out their orders."Nair's lawyer said those comments essentially repeated ones that Nair made in a blog about a defamation case filed by Singapore's leaders against Chee and his party.In the blog, Nair strongly criticised a legal hearing at which Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified.Nair told reporters later Thursday at an open-air coffee shop: "Well, my stand is to dispute the charges."He also said if he used words that Justice Ang or anyone else found offensive, then he apologises. "But I am not apologising for the contents", he added.Nair said he travelled to Singapore specifically to witness the hearing involving Lee Kuan Yew and Chee."My blog was written as a message to the world about my views of matters of public interest," Nair said, adding that he can no longer access his blog.On the day of his arrest, Nair wrote on his blog that he was in Singapore at a particular hotel, and gave his phone number."I am now within your jurisdiction... What are you going to do about it?" wrote Nair, a former Workers' Party candidate for parliament."I wouldn't say that I was taunting the authorities. I just wanted to make it clear that I was in Singapore. I was also very upset," Nair told reporters.The latest charge against Nair carries a maximum fine of 5,000 dollars (3,600 US), or one year in prison, or both.Singapore's leaders say the city-state's judiciary has been been held in high esteem by the World Bank and other international groups. Foreign investors have also praised the country's legal system.U.S. lawyer faces more charges of Singapore judge insultsSINGAPORE, June 12 (Reuters) - A U.S lawyer already facing a charge of insulting a Singapore judge was indicted on Thursday in a Singapore court for disparaging another member of the bench in an email he sent two years ago. The second charge against Gopalan Nair, a former Singaporean now based in California, said he insulted Judge Lai Siu Chiu in an email sent to her secretary around March 2006 and accusing her of bias.It is not clear what case the judge was presiding on.The maximum sentence for the second indictment is a fine of S$5,000 and a jail term of one year."The reason why and her fellow judges punish and silence PAP critics is because judges are well paid and have comfortable lives," court documents quoted Nair's email as saying.The PAP, or People's Action Party, is Singapore's ruling party headed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. It has dominated Singapore politics since independence."It is my right and it is my duty under the constitution of the Republic of Singapore and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be able to speak free as a free man and to state what I have seen and heard. This benefits Singaporeans and the world at large," Nair, on bail, told reporters ahead of a hearing next Monday.Nair was arrested after returning to Singapore last month to attend a three-day hearing presided over by Judge Belinda Ang to determine defamation damages to be paid by a Singapore opposition party and its leader to Prime Minister Lee and his father Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's prime minister for decades.Nair, a critic of Singapore's ruling party, stood for election in 1991 as a member of the opposition Workers' Party. He was later found guilty of contempt of court stemming from an election rally speech and ordered to pay S$21,000 in legal costs and fines.The U.S. embassy said it was monitoring the case."We are consistently advocating for the freedom of expression, including the Internet," an embassy official said. Chua Lee Hoong's a sorry excuse for a journalist I've heard it said somewhere that in Singapore, there are no journalists, only propagandists.And Chua Lee Hoong, the political editor of the pro-govt newspaper, Straits Times, takes the cake for being one. She was also an officer for 9 years in Singapore's Internal Security Department. The way she has been writing makes one wonder whether she ever left.Her recent article on Chee Soon Juan shouldn't come as a surprise as she has been dishing out such pro-govt rubbish for years. Nonetheless, it still does make my blood boil that such rubbish sees the light of day by getting published. My fellow bloggers sgpolitics and sheepcity have written about this as well, here and here.Propagandists like Chua Lee Hoong are severely afflicted with stockholm syndrome and allow themselves to continue being afflicted by it coz they're nothing without the system which they help to prop-up.A note: I got the image from this post by toc Video about local media coverage of Chees vs Lees Read my post about this case and the local media. Singapore Dissident released on bail These are photos from AFP & AP of Gopalan Nair leaving the subordinate courts today. Click on each to go to source,US blogger released on bail in SingaporeSINGAPORE (AFP) - A US-based blogger who allegedly accused a Singapore judge of "prostituting herself" was released on bail Thursday and had his passport confiscated.A judge ordered Gopalan Nair, a former Singapore lawyer who is now a US citizen, to be released on SGD$5,000 bail (3,676 US) after more than four days in custody.A prosecutor told court there was no need for him to be detained while further investigations were carried out.Nair, 58, who declined comment to reporters, is due back in court for another hearing next Thursday.He was arrested in the city-state on Saturday and charged Monday with insulting a public servant, his lawyer Chia Ti Lik earlier told AFP.According to a court document, Nair is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean last week by sending an email which said she "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".Chia said the comments essentially repeated those Nair made in a recent blog about a defamation case filed by Singapore's leaders against an opposition party and its members.In the blog, Nair strongly criticised a three-day legal hearing last week at which Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified.The US-based press freedom watchdog Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed concern about Nair's case."Singapore's detention of Gopalan Nair for public comments about such a highly politicised case is completely unwarranted," said CPJ Asia Programme Coordinator Bob Dietz on the group's website."Freedom to criticise the judiciary is fundamental to a modern society. This case illustrates the Singapore government's ongoing commitment to silencing opposition voices both in print and online."Lee Kuan Yew has dismissed the city-state's ranking near the bottom of a global press freedom index, saying Singaporeans are free to read whatever they want.During his testimony last week, Lee Kuan Yew justified the country's strict political controls and pointed to Singapore's economic success as the "acid test" of his legacy.On Saturday Nair had taunted authorities in a post on his blog, saying he was in Singapore at a particular hotel, and gave his phone number."I am now within your jurisdiction... What are you going to do about it?" wrote Nair, a former Workers' Party candidate for parliament.He is charged with insulting a public servant, which on conviction carries a maximum fine of 5,000 dollars (3,660 US) or one year in prison.Nair's lawyer told reporters outside court that he expects a fresh charge to be laid against his client, without elaborating. Vigils today & tomorrow for Chees Announcement: Vigil for CSJ and CSCDear Readers and Friends,To express our solidarity with Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin, our ardent defenders of democracy, we will be holding a candle light vigil on Thursday at Changi where Ms Chee is serving her 10 days sentence, and then on Friday at Queenstown, where Dr Chee is serving his 12 days sentence.Thursday, 5 JuneWhen: 7.30pm - 11pmWhere: Changi Women's PrisonFriday, 6 JuneWhen: 7.30pm - 11pmWhere: Queenstown Remand PrisonWe invite you to come and light a candle for democracy. Vigil tomorrow & friday for the Chees There will be a vigil tomorrow, 5 jun, for Chee Soon Juan at Changi Prison and another vigil on Fri, 6 jun, for Chee Siok Chin at Queenstown Remand Prison. Both vigils will be held at the same time, 7pm to 11pm. Refer to my post on why they're in prison. Keep an eye or follow me on my twitter too. Laughable comments by Singapore's Law Minister Dear Mr Shanmugam, it is not the duty of citizens to blindly defend the country's judiciary. When it comes to politically-loaded cases, I believe quite a sizeable number of Singaporeans hold the view the judiciary lacks independence and that a powerful few are more equal than others.Law Minister Shanmugam condemns attacks on judiciaryBy S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 04 June 2008 1811 hrsSINGAPORE: Singapore's Law Minister K Shanmugam said it is the duty of all citizens to condemn attacks made on the country's judiciary.He was responding to questions at a community event on Wednesday on the recent behaviour of Singapore's opposition politicians, Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin, at the High Court.This was during a hearing to assess damages for defamation to be awarded to Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.The Chee siblings were found guilty of contempt of court and surrendered themselves on Wednesday to begin their jail sentences.Mr Shanmugam said: "If you take a country like Singapore, based on democratic principles, and you look at the institutions that underpin our society, then conceptually, rule of law is important. It means independence of the judiciary and equality of everyone before the law."In order to have that – not just as a slogan but in reality – you need an independent judiciary that really protects the citizens and in fact, anyone who goes before the courts. People must have confidence that the judiciary is independent."In order to make sure that we protect the integrity of the judiciary and people's confidence in the judiciary is not affected, you have to be very, very strict with anyone who attacks the judiciary in scurrilous ways or calls into question its independence." - CNA/soSingapore dissidents go to jail for contempt of courtSINGAPORE, 4 Jun (AFP) - - Two Singaporean dissidents convicted of committing contempt of court during a legal clash with the country's leaders opted Wednesday to go to jail because they could not afford an appeal.Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister and fellow activist Chee Siok Chin had been sentenced to jail terms of 12 days and 10 days respectively for contempt of court.Chee Siok Chin told AFP Wednesday that they were unable to pay the 2,000 Singapore dollars (1,470 US) in court fees required to file their appeals."We didn't want to delay the matter anymore. We thought we should start serving the sentence," she said by telephone before they were to report to judicial authorities to start their jail terms.The siblings were ruled to be in contempt Monday by Justice Belinda Ang, who heard a defamation case filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former premier Lee Kuan Yew, who is still a powerful cabinet member.Insults flew when the two leaders took the witness stand last week and were cross-examined by the Chees, who defied the judge's admonitions about the way they grilled the ministers.The hearings were aimed at setting the damages to be awarded following a judgement in favour of the leaders. No date has been announced for the final ruling.The Lees have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and out-of-court settlements from critics and foreign publications accused of harming their reputations.Chee Soon Juan is one of a few Singaporeans who have publicly spoken against the hardline ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and has been to jail repeatedly for defying laws against protests and refusing to pay fines. Press release: SDP stands united in facing challenges SDP stands united in facing challengesThe jailing of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin for contempt-of-court has not come as a surprise to the leadership of the Singapore Democratic Party. On the contrary the SDP is resolved and determined more than ever before in its struggle to uphold the rights of our citizens, in particular the workers, the unemployed, the small-and-medium-sized businessmen and the poor.SDP remains undaunted in its uncompromising position of speaking up for the people who are denied their Constitutional rights to freedoms of speech, assembly and expression.The ever increasing cost of living, the humongous salaries for PAP ministers, the rising health care costs, the secrecy shrouding our CPF money, the influx of foreign workers, the mushrooming of ERP gantries, the obstinacy of GIC and Temasek in refusing to be accountable and transparent will continue to feature prominently in our struggle against the authoritarian regime.The tyranny of PAP can imprison our bodies and put us out of action, but no force on earth could imprison our spirits that are the mirror reflection of the sentiments of the general populace whose needs are trampled underfoot by a system that exists for the rich and powerful.Our activities and programmes will continue while Dr Chee, secretary-general of SDP and Ms Chee, a central executive committee member of the party remain incarcerated.For further details on news and other developments visit our website www.yoursdp.org that is becoming the alternative source of information, unlike the government controlled media whose credibility has sunk to the rock bottom.Gandhi AmbalamChairmanSingapore Democratic Party Chees to go to prison tomorrow Latest from SDP on Chee Soon Juan & Chee Siok Chin,Dr Chee and Ms Chee to go to prison tomorrowDr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin have decided not to delay their prison sentences and begin their imprisonment starting tomorrow.The two SDP leaders have been convicted of contempt of court by Judge Belinda Ang and sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively. Their convictions arose out of the cross-examination of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong in the assessment of damages hearing held at the Supreme Court last week.Dr Chee and Ms Chee are unable to file their Notices of Appeal by the deadline because they cannot pay the $2,000 required to file their appeals. Judge Ang had given them until the close of business day of 4 Jun 08 to do so failing which they would go to jail the following day.The defendants had, instead, written to the court and said that they would report tomorrow at 12 noon for their sentences.