Another 2 Activists Tak Boleh Tahan and Surrender

TBT Traitor 4: Chia Ti Lik

I read the papers in disbelief. One of the staunchest of the SDP members, Chia Ti Lik surrendered in court and pleaded guilty to "illegal assembly and procession" in front of Parliament House last year.

The reason cited for pleading guilty was "work commitment", a similar reason also cited by Traitor 2: Jeffrey George. This shows that they rather defend their rice bowls than their ideology.

TBT Traitor 5: Suraya binte Akbar

For Traitor 1 - 3, please click here to view

Another Enlightening SDP Video

Contributed by Reader

On day five of the TBT 16 trial, the SDP made another "enlightening" video to share with all of us. We thank the SDP for their "enlightenment".

Sylvester Lim, the first to be interviewed in the video, seems to have been bought into singing the same "freedom of speech" tune like the rest. He said "the government sees fit to charge me as a Singaporean to exercise my right to speak up". Tell us which of your charges involved speaking up, Mr Lim.

We can agree that the cost of living is high and the government can do more. But in a typical fashion of the SDP, he exaggerated the situation by saying that "Singaporeans can't make ends meet".

When you say "Singaporeans", people will take it that you mean most Singaporeans. True, some Singaporeans cannot make ends meet and that happens in every country, but what about the rest? If most people were really in a bad shape, the SDP is a failure to have only 18 people protesting.

Another exaggeration was this: he said the TBT 16 "can't afford to eat outside" due to the court trials, and their supporters had to provide lunch for them. We may remember the lavish Hawaiian celebration they had which will easily cost the SDP enough to provide meals for the entire trial.

Next up was Jufri Salim. He said "in other countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Hongkong, we've seen some similar protests happen but in Singapore, it is otherwise..... we have been charged right now"

What does it mean by "otherwise"? Does it mean there are no protests in Singapore? Or the countries he mentioned could have protests without people getting charged?

He cannot have forgotten how the Hindraf in Malaysia was disbanded and their members arrested under ISA, or how Indonesian protestors clash with the police and arrests are seen nearly every day. In HK case, police arrested protestors in Disneyland last year. Guess what? Only 2 of them were involved.

SDP Activist John Tan gets suspended by James Cook University

John Tan, a lecturer at James Cook University (Singapore), has been suspended due to the ongoing charges of contempt of court against him. John Tan pointed to the picture of a kangaroo on his T-shirt and saying, "This is a kangaroo court" to Mr Lee Kuan Yew when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside the courtroom. John Tan is also Assistant Secretary General of SDP.

SDP is quick to jump in defence of John Tan in its website. However, the bulk of the defence is irrelevant and misleading. SDP cited these reasons as why the suspension is "completely out of order":

1. Mr Tan has not yet been convicted of the charge. The trial begins only tomorrow, 4 Nov 08. He was suspended on 21 Oct.
2. The action appears to have been triggered by an email complaint that cited Mr Tan's association with Dr Chee Soon Juan and which was copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen.
3. The suspension stayed despite an appeal by Mr Tan citing testimony from 28 of his students that he had gone about his work in a professional manner.

1) Usually, employers sack employees who are charged in court by the state. Even during job interviews, employers do have concern whether the person they are going to employ has ever been charged in court or broken any law. In this case, it is justifiable for JCU to suspend (note that it's different from sacking) John Tan.

Contempt of court is a serious matter and it is duly right that lecturer John Tan face suspension. Even a secondary school boy who gets into a fight or comes late to school can be suspended.

2) Who sent the email is not important in this case. The school's decision to suspend John Tan is due to the information received. And that information is that John Tan is charged for contempt of court. The fact that the email is copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen isn't important too.

SDP is trying hard to imply that the PAP government has a hand in this matter.

3) 28 students seem to be a very small minority for the whole campus. JCU has a reputation to uphold and keeping a lecturer who is charged in court for breaking the law seems to not give a good image.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SDP's article also mentioned that:

"even if Mr Tan is convicted, does the university not have the obligation to protect the free speech of its employees?"

SDP is asking the obvious. Employees should know that they are part of the organisation that they work in and their criminal actions would tarnish the organisation's image and reputation that has taken so long to build.

It is disgraceful that John Tan and the SDP chose to politicise this issue as an academic and as a party. By making use of education and the school, John Tan should be given the boot.

SDP's Enlightening Video

Contributed by Reader

In this video below, the TBT 18 16 (2 down) protestors try to "enlighten" us with their good reasons for protesting and breaking "unjust" laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcI9LPW4_A

One of them, Seelan Palay, said, "my position has always been that, as a human being, I feel that I am free as a social animal, to gather wherever I want, to speak wherever I want, as long as I do not harm someone else."

I guess all laws that do not harm other people should be abolished, such as jaywalking, chewing gum, buying contraband cigarettes, smuggling pirated VCDs. All these do not harm other people.

Another, John Tan, said he protested because "we don't have real democracy here in Singapore" and "no basic human rights". He gave examples like "right to speak", "right to respond to the government", "right to criticize".

It seems the TBT 16 still do not understand what has gone wrong and why they are charged. No wonder they did what they did. Maybe the only 2 who knew pleaded guilty.

The protestors were not charged for gathering. They were charged because they gathered at places where they are not allowed to gather. Not every place are you allowed to gather. For eg. a group of men are not allowed to gather in the ladies toilet.

What had it to do with freedom of speech when they were not charged for speaking at a public place, nor did they say a word during the protest.

People gather everywhere everyday. Why do the police not arrest all of them?

Because the SDP's was not a normal gathering as they claimed. One of their protestors tried to argue along this line, but do they really think it was normal for people to wear the same t-shirts and carry placards? If so, why did they publicize it? Do people who normally gather at bus stops publicize their presence at bus stops? Obviously it was not just a gathering. It was meant to be a law breaking activity.

No right to speak? No right to respond to the government? No right to criticize? Now we know they're living in a different planet from the rest of us, and the hundreds of letter writers to the press daily.

SDP Cock-up -- everytime

On the third day of the TBT trial, SDP entertained Singaporeans yet again when its lawyer couldn't find Parliament Lane on the Singapore map!

(Red circle added for emphasis)

Using the same map that SDP referred to on its website, it took me only a few seconds to locate Parliament Lane. Yes, it might be called Old Parliament Lane, but it's still a Parliament Lane and the oversight on the part of the defence really gives us a chance to munch some popcorns.

Dr Chee gets Legal Help from Foreign Talent

When it comes to day-by-day politics, SDP condemns the ruling party from engaging foreign labour and talents into Singapore, arguing that they compete with locals for jobs.

In a dramatic twist of events, Dr Chee is now accepting legal help from a foreign talent! The foreign talent happens to be Mr Robert Amsterdam, a Canadian lawyer.

As TBT trial proceeds, we are now looking at how SDP members went back on their words, one by one...

Highly Educated SDP Activists doesn't know Reasoning

It is surprising that a party led by a PhD graduate and with many highly educated individuals do not know simple reasoning. Below, those in quotes are words of the SDP:

"How does one ought to 'reasonably' know that having more than one person assemble outside Parliament is an offence?"

Even the average Joe in Orchard road can tell you that SDP activists did not simply assemble outside Parliament. They protested, donning cheaply printed T-shirts, and holding placards. Why is it that every time SDP claims it is campaigning and then later deny it when they go into the courtroom? Can anyone trust this party at all?

"Under cross-examination by one of the defendants, Mr Carl Lang, during the hearing yesterday, police witness Sergeant Nor Hidah said that she was "not sure" whether the area around Parliament House was a gazetted place within which a gathering of more than one person needs police permission. And get this -- she has been a police officer for eights years.

This begs the question, doesn't it? If an experienced police officer doesn't know the above requirement (and we'll wager our last dollar that Sgt Nor Hidah is not the only police officer who doesn't know) how does one expect the average guy to, reasonably or otherwise?"

Since SDP activists, including Dr Chee Soon Juan, feel that they are average, so be it. That explains why SDP is the party rated the worst in terms of credibility.

Stay tune to more entertainment brought to you by SDP in the courtroom for the days to come.

3 Activists Tak Boleh Tahan and Gives Up

Just less than 3 days into the TBT trial of the 18 SDP activists, 3 of them have already fallen from the group. No matter how the photos and videos of the SDP try to picture these activists as a united group standing for a good cause, all these had started to peel off in the eyes of the public. Singaporeans are now witnessing how these activists themselves are beginning to Tak Boleh Tahan and give up the fight.

The Myth of SDP's genuinity to the cause espoused by their TBT campaign

TBT Traitor 1: Ng E-jay

When the trial started in the morning, Ng E-jay can't wait to just plead guilty. See SDP activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan Campaign.

TBT Traitor 2: Jeffrey George

In order to be able to attend work on time, Jeffrey George thought of an ingenious idea. He decided to plead guilty since SDP donations could subsidise his penalties.

TBT Traitor 3: Yap Keng Ho

When cross-examining the police photographer, Yap Keng Ho repeatedly ask questions about the camera being used. He asked about the flash used to establish authenticity, thereby dropping hints that he didn't stand for TBT campaign and thus disassociating himself from the group. He's smart in not pleading guilty since he knows SDP donations are too little and can't help him much. The other 15 noticed that and lost patience with him. Chia Ti Lik even allied with the Prosecutor to get Yap Keng Ho to shut up! See the news report extract below:

Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent
The Straits Times
25 October 2008

"THERE were disagreements in court on Friday as the first prosecution witness took the stand in the ongoing trial of 17 people charged with taking part in an illegal assembly outside Parliament House on Mar 15.

However, this came from among defendants themselves, as they could not see eye-to-eye on a number of matters.

Chief among these was the line of questioning of police photographer Nor Hidah Ali Jinnah, the witness.

At one point, lawyer Chia Ti Lik, a defendant, interrupted fellow defendant Yap Keng Ho's cross-examination to say: 'Your Honour, I do not see the relevance of this line of questioning. And I wonder why the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecutor) has not objected.'

Yap had been questioning the police photographer on the type of flash she used to take pictures of the scene. He said it was to establish the authenticity of the photos.

Staff Sergeant Nor Hidah had been tasked to take pictures of the area where the assembly and procession had allegedly taken place, to establish the setting.

Half an hour of questions from Yap delving into technical details of her camera equipment made his co-defendants lose patience..."

Stay tuned as we count down the days to the disbanding of SDP!

SDP Activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan Campaign

In its latest article "AGC cannot decide whether to use video or not", SDP reporting seems to become a laughable joke. Let's take a look at some excerpts in quotes:

"The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600."

Compare this to the article "Come and support the activists during the trial" which read, "We are proud of being able to come together to defend and push for the rights of our fellow citizens, for without these rights we are at the mercy of the PAP. We know that we are guided by the truth and righteousness."

If SDP knows it's righteous, why did its activist pleaded guilty in the morning?

"In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200."

What's more, one of the SDP activists pleaded guilty just to go back to work! Seems like career is more important than political stand.

The Best Job Insurance: SDP calls out for supporters to donate to its legal defence fund, which will be used to keep Mr George's job.

With the guilty pleas, SDP has lost its legitimacy among its supporters. This is because SDP has gone back on its civil disobedience action. Remember how Dr Chee claimed to be on hunger strike but secretly drank glucose water?

Oscar Award for the most illogical statement of the YEAR:

"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"

This either shows the naivity of Mr Jufrie to law, or that he's trying to say the SDP did not campaign at all in front of Parliament. So wasn't there a demonstration?

In conclusion, SDP doesn't really care about the poor in Singapore as much as they say they are. It protested outside Parliament House but said they were just like tourists walking pass Parliament without intention of demanding more to be done to alleviate poverty in Singapore. All else said, after the bankruptcy of SDP, it could consider joining the Entertainment industry.

SDP Activist Gives up & Pleads Guilty

Jeremy Au Yong
The Straits Times

Headline: 19 on illegal assembly trial

IT WAS a lively start to the first day of court proceedings for 19 people accused of demonstrating in front of Parliament House in March.

The 19, who include Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, have been charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and a subsequent procession.

The group piled into Court 5 of the Subordinate Courts at 9.30am on Thursday, and extra chairs had to be put in place to accomodate all of them.

The public gallery was filled with about 20 people, including supporters of the SDP and those on trial.

Amid the noise and commotion as the defendants were taking their seats before proceedings started, one of them, blogger Yap Keng Ho, 45, remarked to the rest: 'This is the largest pasar malam in the history of Singapore'.

During the course of proceedings before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, several of those who were charged rose to ask questions or make applications.

There were requests for copies video clips taken by the police of the March 15 event; one accused sought an adjournment as he wanted to get back to his job; and one asked for the Court to observe a minute's silence for the late opposition polition JB Jeyaretnam, who was to have represented several of the activists.

But the first order of formal business on Thursday morning for District Judge Chia was to deal with the decision by one of the accused, blogger Ng E-Jay, 31, who said that he was pleading guilty.

He told The Straits Times that he had decided to do so just on Wednesday.

Proceedings were then adjourned so that his case could be dealt with before the trial of the remaining 18 accused could continue.

Ng was fined $600, or six days in jail in default, after he admitted to the charge.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_293924.html

Right to criticise 'doesn't cover lies'

Straits Times
18 October 2008

Govt responds to call by US advocacy group to desist from 'using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'

THE Government yesterday gave its position on criticisms levelled against government leaders by opposition politicians, in response to a statement by a New York-based advocacy group, Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The group had called on Singapore's leaders to 'end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'. In comments posted on its website yesterday, it highlighted a High Court ruling this week.

HRW noted that the court had awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew six-figure sums against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary-general Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin for defamation.

In reply, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' spokesman noted that in Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the Government and government leaders.

But, Ms K. Bhavani added, 'that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame'.

'If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross-examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true.

'This is the way to establish the truth, and to keep Singapore's public discourse honest and responsible.''

In reference to the court ruling, Ms Bhavani noted that the Chees and their political party, the SDP, had accused PM Lee and MM Lee of dishonesty, nepotism and corruption, among other things.

They had done it just before a General Election in 2006, she noted in a statement to the media. 'When the two ministers sued, the other members of the SDP central executive committee apologised, but Chee and his sister refused to do so.

'The Chees had every opportunity to justify and prove their allegations in court, but totally failed to do so. Therefore, they have to pay damages commensurate with the seriousness of the defamation and in accordance with the judgment of the court.'

The defamation was committed in articles published in SDP's newsletter, The New Democrat. Nine of its leaders settled earlier with the Lees, apologising and paying them $170,000 each.

That leaves the SDP and the Chee siblings owing the Lees $610,000 in all. The siblings are bankrupt. If the SDP is unable to pay, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of being wound up.

The possibility was highlighted as well in HRW's statement. It reported its deputy Asia director Elaine Pearsonas saying: 'Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy. Opposition criticism of the Government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.'

The group urged the Government to 'lift legal restrictions on freedom of expression to bring the country in line with international law'.

In concluding remarks, the HRW said 'the assault on free speech by Singapore's leaders extends to critical foreign publications circulating in Singapore'.

It mentioned several cases, involving among others, the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Wall Street Journal Asia.

Ms Pearson said: 'The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression.

'Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.'

SDP to pay S$610,000

There's a price to pay for disrespecting the judicial court and irresponsible accusations. Even before SDP gets itself into lawsuits, the precedent cases of defamation suits were abundant. The Opposition knows it, and we have seen how Workers' Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance could win elections without slandering others.

SDP leaders have to be responsible for slander. The only chance they had in court to bring in their valid arguments was wasted away by the drama they created within the court. At the end of the day, after SDP leaders had fun in the courtroom, they started to blame it on others (PAP) instead of reflecting on themselves.

PM Lee, MM Lee awarded 6-figure sums in libel case against SDP & party leaders

Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia

The High Court has awarded six-figure sums to both Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in their libel case against the Singapore Democratic Party and its leaders.

Justice Belinda Ang said she came to the conclusion that a fair and reasonable figure for damages was S$500,000 for Mr Lee Hsien Loong and S$450,000 to Mr Lee Kuan Yew for defamatory remarks which appeared in an SDP publication during the 2006 General Election.

After taking into account the S$170,000 which each plaintiff had earlier received in settlement from six other defendants, she awarded damages of S$330,000 to be paid to Prime Minister Lee and S$280,000 to Minister Mentor Lee.

Justice Ang said the amount was commensurate with and proportionate to the gravity of the libel and the "egregious behaviour" of the defendants Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin.

Justice Ang said defendants Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin had played to the gallery.

She ordered them to pay aggravated damages, saying they had attempted to establish the truth of the libel under the pretext of cross-examining the plaintiffs.

She added the plaintiffs had been "subjected to insulting behaviour and more than unpleasant cross-examination, which increased their sense of having been ridiculed and humiliated".

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/382524/1/.html

SDP Treats the Court as a Circus

Referring to the SDP article "Lighter moments in court", we can now be convinced that the championing of rules of law by the SDP is insincere.

In previous trials in court where Dr Chee and Ms Chee were debating with the MM and PM Lee, the Chees had already shouted in court and failed to respect the judiciary in doing so. However, some Singaporeans then felt that they had done a good job in bringing out some of the common grievances of the population.

This time round, it finally confirmed the lack of respect of the Courts by SDP.

"The DPP interjected saying that the defendants were jumping to conclusion that they would be found guilty. The defendants chuckled to themselves, one of whom was Mr John Tan, SDP's assistant secretary-general.

Mr Tan then remarked: That's really funny."

How are Singaporeans going to believe that SDP wants to champion on the platform of rule of law when it has no basic respect for the institution of law?

HK, Singapore voted having best judicial systems in Asia

Channel NewsAsia

Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption, PERC added.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference," while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weight. - AFP/de

Source:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/375900/1/.html

Wall St Journal Asia sued

Sue-Ann Chi
The Straits Times

THE Singapore Government is taking the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA) newspapers and its editors to court, accusing them of contempt of court.

It alleges that three articles the WSJA had published in June and July 'impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore Judiciary'.

This statement was posted on the website of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday when it got approval from the High Court to start legal proceedings.

Two of the articles are the newspaper's editorials, while the third is a letter by Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan.

Those who will face the charge of contempt of court are: Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), which owns and publishes WSJA; Mr Daniel Hertzberg, editor, international of WSJA; and WSJA managing editor Christine Glancey.

When contacted last night, a Dow Jones spokesman, speaking for all of them, declined to comment.

All three articles allege the Singapore Judiciary is not independent, the AGC said in its online statement.

'It is further insinuated that the Singapore Judiciary is biased and lacks integrity. These allegations and insinuations in these items are unwarranted,' it added.

One of the editorials examined the lack of democracy in Singapore and included an account of the exchange in court between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and SDP chief Chee Soon Juan.

The hearing in May was to assess defamation damages Dr Chee, his sister and the SDP had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee.

The other editorial was on the Singapore Judiciary, following a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute in July. The 72-page report alleges executive interference in the Judiciary.

In its online statement, the AGC also said: 'This case is not about freedom of expression. It is about the rule of law.'

The courts, it added, play a vital role in good governance. Hence, an 'unwarranted attack' against the Judiciary is an 'assault on the rule of law in Singapore'.

'It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice and rule of law that disappointed litigants or persons with a particular philosophy or agenda should not undermine the authority of the courts.

'This is completely against the public interest. Words or actions that undermine the authority of the court or judges amount to contempt of court,' it said.

The AGC also pointed out that the articles were published at a time when the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of the WSJA, is being sued for defamation by PM Lee and MM Lee.

It could not be confirmed yesterday whether Dow Jones had received notice of the legal suit.

Getting the High Court's approval to start contempt proceedings is the first of a two-stage process.

Once the nod is given, as it was yesterday at a closed-door session, the Attorney-General will take the next step.

The other parties will be officially notified of the lawsuit and a hearing date will be set for both sides to present their arguments in open court.

Source:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/Story/STIStory_277753.html