Vivian, in a dramatic theatrical display, waives Parliamentary privilege to enable himself to be sued for his remarks by Opposition, knowing full well Singapore judges are totally corrupt, who ALWAYS find for the govt and its politicians
I refer to the articles “WP’s Low wrong not to investigate, leaves grave doubts about his MPs: PM Lee” (Straits Times breaking news, Jul 12) and ”Workers’ Party rejects call to investigate hawker centre cleaning row” (Today, Jul 11).
Integrity of MPs and the sort of politics Singapore needs in a First World Parliament
The former states that “Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang cannot leave grave doubts about the integrity of his fellow MPs unresolved, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Friday, in his first comments since a dramatic exchange between one of his ministers and the opposition party in Parliament earlier this week.
“This is not how members of a First World Parliament should conduct themselves,” he added, in an oblique reference to the WP’s slogan in the last general election.
“Neither is this the sort of politics Singapore needs,” Mr Lee said in a statement.”
Waive Parliamentary privilege
The latter article states that “Dr Balakrishnan had waived his parliamentary privilege for remarks made on Tuesday, which included calling as “false and untruthful” statements made by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council Chairman Sylvia Lim and Vice-Chairman Pritam Singh on the issue. This means Ms Lim and Mr Singh have the option of suing him for defamation.”
Defamation trial of J B Jeyaretnam
Since the subject of defamation has been raised following Parliament, I am reminded of the defamation trial of the late honourable Mr J B Jeyaretnam, former Member of Parliament for Anson.
Sometimes, you get the feeling that perhaps its time to re-read a very good book that you have read a long time ago.
So, I read Mr J B Jeyaretnam’s book, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, 2003, by Mr J B Jeyaretnam once again.
I would like to share the following extracts (transcript of JBJ’s defamation trial on pages 117 to 120) with you:
“Q: There’s a photograph of a gentleman; you obtained damages from Mr.Tang. But look at the right-hand side of the photograph, please. There’s a quotation from you. I want you to confirm its accuracy. It’s in The New Paper in December 26, 1996.
Q: (Reads) “People say we got to check the Govt. but I argue that the Govt has to check the opposition. If you don’t have a Govt that checks the opposition, when they don’t screen their candidates, we are going to end up with all kinds of characters in Govt. This will diminish the standing of Parliament. – Prime Minister on why he was exposing Mr.Tang. Just like your help on this so that the Court knows your approach. Are you saying that as leader, Prime Minister, leader of the PAP and Prime Minister, you believe it’s you duty to check the opposition?
A: First, let me clarify, I think, one word of it here. It could be a misquote. It should be “all kinds of characters in Parliament”not “Government”.
Q: Exactly. So you mean ‘Parliament’?
A: In ‘Parliament’, that’s what I meant. Yes.
Q: Well, could you now kindly address the question: Do you take the view that as Prime Minister, as leader of your party, it’s your duty to check the opposition?
A: Yes. I think when that statement was made in the context, I thought it as my duty to prevent unsavoury characters from entering Parliament. So it’s my duty to check the opposition members who could do harm to the whole system of a government in Singapore.
Q: By ‘unsavoury characters’, do you mean ‘people with unsavoury ideas’ or ‘unsavoury behaviour’?
A: Unsavoury behaviour, character. And in some cases, ideas which are threatening to the harmony of Singapore.
Q: Look further down in terms of your approach to democracy, please. You advised the young voters. Do you see them?
Q: Half down, about voting, “we are telling them, we are not giving you the luxury of a choice.” Isn’t it rather odd for a democratic leader in a democractic society to say you are not giving them the luxury of choice?
A: Yes. If you read the article-
Mr Carman: I have
A: — we were talking about upgrading, right, and having some opposition MPs. What the young voters wanted or some young voters wanted was to have both: the upgrading of our HDB estates plus having opposition MPs. So I said, “I’m not giving you the luxury of a choice. You have to decide one way or the other. That’s democracy if you want upgrading, then you don’t have your opposition MP. If you want to have him, you don’t have upgrading.”
Q: You linked up upgrading in that election, didn’t you, whether people voted for you or not?
A: Well, we did because that was part of our programme. That was the key pillar of our programme.
Mr. Carman: No, no.
A: No, I linked it because it was a major pillar of our programme.
Q: Well, we don’t want to waste time on it. But what are the threats put forward by you? I could show you the press cutting if you want.
Q: That upgrading in certain precints would be dependent on whether they voted with the PAP or not.
A: Yes, of course, because that’s our main programme.
Q: Well, you were already in government because you got an unelected-sorry, unopposed majority.
Q: The 47 seats, you already got a majority before the election.
A: Right, right.
Q: So everybody knew you would be in government.
Q: Whether the people vote for you or against you, you are still in government.
A: Yes, but I might not be running the town councils.”
Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.////////////////////--
RH: For the veracity, honesty and corruptibility of the Singapore courts and judges, read this Wikipedia article on former Singapore Solicitor-General Mr Francis SEOW and also, his insider account of the Singapore judiciary, in his excellent book Beyond Suspicion? -- The Singapore Judiciary [click], available on amazon.com[click here for link to book]. Book is described as:
ReviewOnce again, Francis Seow has revealed, with his usual rigour and attention to detail, a vital part of Singapore's repressive machinery, this time by placing his spotlight on its judiciary. 'Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary' is essential to understanding the true nature of human rights abuses in that country. Human rights campaigners now and historians of the future will regard it a required reading. -- Margaret John, Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia, Amnesty Internatinal Canada
Francis Seow has not just exposed the judiciary; he has also laid bare the serious limitations of the political system. This is a quite brilliant piece of sustained analysis of how the judiciary is harnessed to political persecution. It is a style and methodology that is more legalistic..., but it is only through this approach that the full magnitude of the judiciary's emasculation and the PAP's manic desire to crush the slightest semblance of serious scrutiny become fully clear. --Garry Rodan, Director, Asia Rresearch Centre, Murdoch University, Western Australia
This is an extremely valuable record of many significant cases and events that lay bare the dynamics of the Singapore judiciary and its intersection with political personalities and imperatives. It is an impressive work...of scholarly and public policy interest, providing chapter and verse on the politico-legal nexus in Singapore. -- Christopher Tremewan, Pro Vice-Chancellor (International), University of Auckland, New Zealand
About the AuthorFrancis Seow was educated at Saint Joseph's Institution in Singapore and at the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple, London. he joined the Singapore Legal Service in 1956, serving as deputy public prosecutor until 1972, when he entered private law practice. He was appointed Solicitor General of Singapore by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and was elected president of the Law Society in 1986. In 1989, Seow was appointed the first Orville Schell Fellow, Yale Law School, and in 1990, a Fellow at East Asian Legal Studies, Harvard Law School.>>>>>>>>>> TO HELP ME, COMPLETE THESE STATEMENTS, THANKS: http://roberthorequestforstatements.blogspot.com/My wife, an accountant, then a manager in an MNC drawing a 5-figure salary before she retired, can confirm that I write the Truth in all these. <<<<<<<<<<RH: LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS + PoBoB and CCTV Ideas:
MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION. READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED "I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT" :http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/
MY ONLINE POLICE REPORT ON LKY LHL WKS CHEATING ELECTIONS:
a. MY SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 16 JULY 2010:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-sworn-affidavit-of-16-july-2010.htmlb. SWORN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT:c. SOME LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH I GROUND MY CASE:d. THE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS THAT PROVES MY CASE;e. 3rd EMAIL TO UK PM FOR OBSTRUCTING, PERVERTING JUSTICE:LEE Kuan Yew, LEE Hsien Loong, Tony TAN, HO Ching corruptions and theft of billions:
"POWERFUL POLITICIANS WHO CANNOT CREATE, INVENT, SOLVE PROBLEMS AND CHANGE THE WORLD CAN ONLY TAKE SATISFACTION BLOCKING, DEGRADING, THOSE WHO CAN."