• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Desmond Choo's Yellow Ribbon Team

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
The hearing was also a joy as Francis Seow crucified the old man and you can see that he was struggling.

me remembered that classic look on the old man's face when FS gave it to him in face that FS's position was attained through a fair electoral process... wonder if SBC still has the reel of film or it had been banished from daylights?
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Julian Lennon had the same thing to say about his dad. John Lennon went around the world preaching love, peace and understanding but he gave none of that to his own children.

Julian was the inspiration for this world famous song:

Hey Jude, don't make it bad
Take a sad song and make it better
Remember to let her into your heart
And then you can start to make it better

When he became an adult, he wrote this song which became a top 10 hit:

Sitting on a pebble by the river, playing guitar.............

The comparison u made is laughable.
 

HTOLAS

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
There are rumours that technicians at SBC were ordered to adjust the lighting balance to tone down the redness of LKY's face for the encore telecasts.

me remembered that classic look on the old man's face when FS gave it to him in face that FS's position was attained through a fair electoral process... wonder if SBC still has the reel of film or it had been banished from daylights?
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Correction, bro. It was 'My dear Prime Minister".

Really pissed Old man off, so much so that he had to ask the Speaker to restrain FS from using that phrase!


Yes, it was. It was an eye opener. You could see the fear that old man projected. The bravery showed by the 2 ladies and Seow were outstanding. I like the part where Seow calls old man "My Prime Minister"

More importantly if you go thru the transcript, even as late 1986, you were considered a Pariah to be a member of an opposition. The next year, all three were detained under ISA.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
It was the same session in which every member of the LS was dragged over the coals, isnt it? It was a character assassination massacre. I remembered Mirza Namazie on the stand and was forced to confess that he cheated at the Bar exams and protested that so did everyone else. And Old Man rejoinder was "Exactly, proves my point" or something like that.

Bro, unfortunately it was on 9th and 10th Oct 1986 long before youtube and the internet was available. Its probably in TV archives. You probably get more details in ST archives from the library.

Here is the Parliamentary Record including the minutes of evidence.

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/SelectCommittee/resource/pdf/1986/19861016_BIL_FULL.pdf
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Agree. This particular inquiry gave Singaporeans to see the old man and understand his thought process. He literally considered opposition parties as inherently subversive, dissent as as unacceptable and worse still any feedback related to policy including from professions that are impacted as out of bounds and anti-govt. it was after this inquiry that it dawned on Singaporeans that his interpretation of his remit as the elected govt was all encompassing, total and no different from a mandate from heaven.

If you look at the responses provided by the those who were witnesses including people like Teo, Tang, Subash etc they took greta pains to say that are not with WP even though they acted for it in voluntary terms and even donated money. It appeared as though being an opposition member was a treasonable offence.

Sadly one of the nicest Perm Sec was so scared of old man that he refused to concede that Francis was right about bank loans were not considered as part of the annual declaration. That bordered on dishonesty and he was in a lead position to handle disciplinary matters of senior servants.

It also showed that old man and FS both had brilliant minds.

. FS is perhaps, the only individual who could debate Old Man, and win.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I stand corrected. And very gladly. If it was Mahathir, FS would have been charged with bestiality.

Correction, bro. It was 'My dear Prime Minister".

Really pissed Old man off, so much so that he had to ask the Speaker to restrain FS from using that phrase!
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is trademark old man. Remember Chiam See Tong and his O level results. Everything he does he starts with character assasination. He gathered 7 annual submissions of financial declarations and that was his opening gambit for FS. FS kept asking the chairman the relevancy. Notice Barker, Jayakumar etc and their doeful conduct. Can you imagine how the cabinet meeting would have been carried out. It would take a new cabinet minister brimming with ideas about 5 minutes before they caved in in totallity for the rest of their political life.


It was the same session in which every member of the LS was dragged over the coals, isnt it? It was a character assassination massacre. I remembered Mirza Namazie on the stand and was forced to confess that he cheated at the Bar exams and protested that so did everyone else. And Old Man rejoinder was "Exactly, proves my point" or something like that.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Unfortunately, he had no nemesis equal to him. Perhaps, the Tengku and the Colonial governor, Sir W Goode. But these people tho having the powers to subpoena him for a list of seditious acts, either did not have the primeval instinct or the vindictiveness to annihilate him. These people still have the sense of playing by the law and justice. Like when animals hunt, they kill only to satisfy their next meal, not to annihilate wantonly.

Old Man is such an evil character that when he sets out to take a man down, he also seeks to destroy him completely and totally. Especially his rivals. History is full of examples of his excesses. True to Machiavellian character.

It is trademark old man. Remember Chiam See Tong and his O level results. Everything he does he starts with character assasination. He gathered 7 annual submissions of financial declarations and that was his opening gambit for FS. FS kept asking the chairman the relevancy. Notice Barker, Jayakumar etc and their doeful conduct. Can you imagine how the cabinet meeting would have been carried out. It would take a new cabinet minister brimming with ideas about 5 minutes before they caved in in totallity for the rest of their political life.
 
Last edited:

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
u mean Subash Anandan the famous criminal lawyer?
I thought he is a singaporean?
Why he got so complicated background can become famous lawyer?

from: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/SelectCommittee/resource/pdf/1986/19861016_BIL_FULL.pdf

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
10 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Subhas Anandan (cont.)
The Prime Minister (cont.)

1451. So he left before they could ask him what he was doing?
--- Yes, Sir.
1452. You are stateless, aren't you? --- Yes, Sir.
1453. You like to be a citizen? --- Yes, Sir.
1454. You know a citizen has to be loyal to Singapore and not undermine its institutions? --- I know that. I think I will do both.
1455. And you won't be running around? --- With pro-communists, no. I think I have stopped it a long time ago.
1456. You have stopped it. You have also stopped your association with the Sembawang Black Eagle Gang? --- I was never associated with that gang, Sir, even though I am classified as the head of that gang, I was never.
1457. You were not? --- I challenge that, Sir.
1458. What were you doing with them then? --- I was doing nothing with them.
1459. You mean they were separate from you? --- They were separate. I was never. That allegation ----
1460. You just had coffee with them? --- I did not have anything to do with them. Not even coffee or tea.
1461. The revised charge against you is that you were not a hit member but an associate of the Black Eagle Gang? --- I will even
deny that, Sir.
1462. Then you were involved in a case of settlement talk? --- Settlement talk, yes.
1463. That is peaceful, it is all right? --- It is peaceful.
1464. So when it comes to settlement, you appeared? --- Yes. Because not everybody is asked to settle a problem in Sembawang.
1465. So when they hit you are not there? --- If they hit, I wouldn't know about it. I do not want to know about it.
1466. You will be absent? --- I wouldn't even have the knowledge, Sir.
1467. But on three occasions, hit occasions, you were there?
--- No, I was not there. Only one incident where nobody was hit anyway. I think the matter was fully investigated by the CPIB and
other police.
1468. CPIB? --- Yes, Sir. I was interviewed in prison by the CPIB and I think subsequently the CPIB charged the inspector.
1469. But the inspector was acquitted? --- Yes. I think he had a good lawyer. I do not know.
1470. Not because he was innocent? --- I don't know, Sir.
1471. That he rightly detained you? --- Sir, sometimes a person can be acquitted but, as some famous judge said, it does not
mean that he is innocent. I still think I was framed up, with all due respect, by the police inspector concerned.
1472. By the police inspector concerned. You have a chance, Mr Subhas, of earning credits for your citizenship. I always
believe that a man should have hope. Where do you stand now with regard to all these activities by Miss Teo Soh Lung, Tang Fong Har?
Do you know that they are active supporters of the Workers' Party?
Where do you stand vis-a-vis them? --- Sir, I will not be in favour of the Law Society being taken over by any political party. I would think that the Law Society should be there to protect the interest, to look after the welfare of the lawyers and comment on changes in the profession. But I will not be in favour of any political party taking over the Law Society or manipulating the Council.
1473. Or getting the President to issue statements on the
Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act? --- Sir, I think this President is very hard to make him do something he doesn't want to do.
1474. We've just heard Miss Teo Soh Lung who got him to appear before the Commission of inquiry, issue a press statement? --- If he had allowed Miss Teo to make use of him, I am certainly disappointed at him because I was always under the impression he cannot be manipulated. He is such a strong man. Imagine Miss Teo manipulating him. I find it quite hard to believe.
1475. Yes. Unless he wanted to, he found it convenient? --- Unless he believed in what Miss Teo believed, I do not know.
1476. But do you believe that the Law Society was advancing the cause of lawyers by involving itself on the Newspaper and
Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill (NPPB)? --- Sir, I do not know about the Law Society's involvement other than they made a statement
criticizing or ---
1477. Carrying out a survey? --- Because I was not involved in the Sub-Committee or what the Council was doing on this.
1478. I want you to clarify your position for your next application for citizenship? This is only half in jest, Mr Subhas Anandan? --- Sir, I believe that the Law Society, where possible,
should come to assist the legislator in passing of Bills, give their views. I think the Law Society should do it because they are a group of professional people.
1479. Assist as lawyers, qua lawyers? --- Yes, lawyers.
1480. Not qua politicians? --- Of course not.
1481. How to draft the Bill more professionally? --- Yes.
1482. More accurately? --- Yes.
1483. More effectively? --- Yes.
1484. Not to say that the Government is embarking on legislation which is cruel, harsh, stop the freedom, free of flow information. What does the Law Society know about the free flow information? --- I think you should ask the Council.
1485. No, I am asking you whether you are in sympathy with those statements? --- No. As I said, Sir, I think the Law Society, the Council, should comment in the sense that they should be involved with the legislative process because we are a group of professional people.
1486. You've heard Mr Elias. You saw him on television? --- A little bit, yes.
1487. That he and none of his predecessors came out with statements against proposed Government le islation or pending Government legislation and therefore engaged the Government in political argument. What would you do? --- Sir, if I am not mistaken, the only thing that is objectionable to the Government is what the Council did, they published their statement to the press.
1488. That will do? --- But I believe the other councils too. They have commented about laws but ----
1489. I am talking now of you and your position vis-a-vis the Law Society. Would you approve of Mr Elias's position that such statement should not be published? --- I would not agree with him totally.
1490. Oh, you would want to take the Government on, you mean? --- I am not going to take anybody on. As I said, I am thinking of my next application. But I would like to say that I am in agreement with Mr Harry Elias on certain aspects of it. But I am not going to say that the present Council is totally wrong. I think they should be asked to explain why did they take that particular stand.
1491. Explain ---? --- Why did they do.
1492. They should be asked? --- Yes. They should be asked why should they. I have yet to know what is the reason that they published.
1493. You are a member of the Law Society. I think you should call an EGM and ask them. That will raise credit points? --- Maybe I will think about it.
1494. Good. Thank you? --- Much obliged.
Chairman
1495. Thank you very much. You may step down? --- Can I take it that I am released?
Chairman] Yes. Thank you.
[
 
Last edited:

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The irony is that Desmond was Head, Special Investigation Section of the CID when he was a DSP ( he was a Supt when he resigned to contest GE 2011 ). This unit handles all major crimes such as murders, kidnappings etc


He was well-liked by his subordinates for being humble and fair. Sharp too. But almost everyone knew it was going to be a short posting and his career wasn't going to be in SPF.

Yes, I note the irony. Hope against hope, Lionel won't succeed in 48-ing him. Combination of Lionel and Subhas will always be deadly coz they enjoy coming from the back!
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
He was well-liked by his subordinates for being humble and fair. Sharp too. But almost everyone knew it was going to be a short posting and his career wasn't going to be in SPF.

Yes, I note the irony. Hope against hope, Lionel won't succeed in 48-ing him. Combination of Lionel and Subhas will always be deadly coz they enjoy coming from the back!

As an officer, an indidivual has to roll up his sleeves to do work, be humble to learn, and be fair to earn the respect of subordinates and superiors. If an individual is not an overseas scholar (SAF or SPF), it is unlikely that one can be a COL or SUPT at age 32.

By the way, what is "48-ing" ?
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
As an officer, an indidivual has to roll up his sleeves to do work, be humble to learn, and be fair to earn the respect of subordinates and superiors. If an individual is not an overseas scholar (SAF or SPF), it is unlikely that one can be a COL or SUPT at age 32.

By the way, what is "48-ing" ?

48 is see chap puay, sientao, conmen etc.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
As an officer, an indidivual has to roll up his sleeves to do work, be humble to learn, and be fair to earn the respect of subordinates and superiors. If an individual is not an overseas scholar (SAF or SPF), it is unlikely that one can be a COL or SUPT at age 32.

By the way, what is "48-ing" ?

A great pity you left before we could meet again. Would have taken you to chiong the nightlife and look-see Geylang. Next time, bro.
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
A great pity you left before we could meet again. Would have taken you to chiong the nightlife and look-see Geylang. Next time, bro.

I left Singapore when I was relatively young (about 30 years ago), and hence, did not have any "on the job" or "clinical experience" pertaining to the nightlife in Geylang and KTV joints.

I was hoping to go with you, Sir, on a (for lack of a better term) guided tour of the more interesting nightlife in Singapore or Geylang in particular. The next time I am in Singapore, I would be much obliged, if you, Sir, could kindly take me on an education tour.

Wish you continuing good health, peace and satisfaction ("an le" in Mandarin) in life.
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
from: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/SelectCommit...6_BIL_FULL.pdf

The Then Honourable Prime Minister cross examining FTS (Mr. Francis T. Seow)

excerpts:


378. Mr Seow, you were faced with an alternative of either having your actions investigated which would lead to odious consequences or, because of what you have done, to have your actions overlooked and that you would be allowed to resign? --- Mr Prime Minister, may I say this? In all fairness to myself as well as to you, I decided to resign the Service. Before doing that, I wanted your blessings, the blessings of the Minister for Law and the
blessings of the Minister for Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee.
379. But had you not resigned and investigations proceeded, there would have been unpleasant consequences? --- I was not aware of any investigations then being undertaken. upon the course for which you sent me. And therefore I blazed my own lonely furrow.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow (cont.)
The Prime Minister (cont.)
380. Mr Seow, four police officers were dismissed from the Service because they had raided a flat of a girl friend of yours?
--- Correct. But before I go on any further, may I ask Mr Chairman, the Speaker, whether all this is relevant to the purpose for which I am here today.
Chairman
381. Well, you were given two alternatives, Mr Seow? Which one would you choose? --- What alternatives are there? What is the purpose of this Select Committee except to examine and assist on the question of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.
382. Yes. It is purely on that we are examining you? --- My private life, the number of girl friends that I may have are all completely irrelevant to the issues before you.
Chairman] All right. You can assume that. Perhaps the Prime Minister can carry on.
The Prime Minister
383. I am not worried about your girl friends, Mr Seow. I am worried about what you did to these police officers through Mr Yoong Siew Wah, then Director, CPIB, whom you knew very well and had worked with when he was in the Special Branch and later Director, Internal Security Department? --- Before I go on to answer this, Mr Speaker, is this relevant to the issue before us?
Chairman] It is probably very relevant.
The Prime Minister
384. It has to do with the disqualification clause and why it arose when I immediately wrote to the Attorney-General in January after reading your speech. You have a choice, Mr Seow? --- Very well, I have nothing to hide. And if you think, Mr Prime Minister, with great respect, by delving into my private life for which I may go about it ---
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow (cont.)
The Prime Minister (cont.)
385. This is not your private life. This is your public life. You were using your position as Solicitor-General and your close association with Director, CPIB, whom you knew when he was in the Special Branch, to exert pressure in his investigations on four police officers which led to their unlawful dismissal from the police force? --- That is a matter of opinion. In fact, do you realize that we found evidence that led to their being placed on disciplinary charges? Or were you not told about that?
386. As consequence of the faulty evidence and the faulty faulty procedures, the Attorney-General had to intervene to get them reinstated? --- Well, that I do not know.
387. Not even now? --- Now you are telling me.
388. You would not have known. You mean, after all these years you did not know that the four officers were reinstated? ----
Of course, they were. I say I did not know.
389. And why do you say you have to depend on me to tell you?
--- Allow me to explain. These officers were being investigated upon my complaint. That is quite correct. It was difficult for the police force or for the particular Division from which these four officers were then stationed to investigate because, as you probably know, they would cover up evidence or there was a likelihood that that might be so. And therefore I then instructed the Director of the CPIB to look into it and he was able to uncover evidence which suggested that, in fact, the allegations of a theft within a theft did, in fact, take place. And they were then placed, if my memory serves me right, on disciplinary charges. How the disciplinary charges were conducted and so on and who sat on them, I do not recall and I do not know. But I know the upshot of it all was that they were recommended to be dismissed.
390. But you do recall talking to Mr Yoong Siew Wah and ---?
--- Oh, certainly I do.
391. And initiating the proceedings?. --- I beg your pardon.
392. And initiating the investigations? --- Yes, of course. Of course, I have just stated it.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow ( cont. )
The Prime Minister (cont.)
393. But this was a criminal offence. What were you doing getting the Director, CPIB, to investigate a non-corruption activity? --- For reasons which I have just been explaining to you,
Mr Prime Minister.
394. Which is that it was more convenient to use your special friendship with him to put the heat on the four officers? --- That, I am afraid, is a misinterpretation or misreading by you.
395. Do you know as a consequence that he was boarded out of the Service? --- Well, I don't know about he being boarded out.
But I know he was not then he was a quite sick man.
396. And you took advantage of him? --- Oh, no, please. Please.
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
401. And I am suggesting to you that when you resigned, you were heavily in debt? --- What has the fact that I am in debt got to do with this, Mr Chairman, Sir. May I have a ruling on this?
Chairman
402. Perhaps the Prime Minister can ---? --- He can ask anything he likes?
B 63
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow ( cont. )
The Prime Minister
403. Mr Seow, it will save you and us a lot of time because you are not going - I have given you a choice, not to go into the details but if you choose to, we shall? --- I do not choose anything, Mr Prime Minister. I am here to answer questions, questions which are relevant to this inquiry.
404. Well, do so? --- Yes. Why don't you direct your questions, relevant questions, to me? I accept the fact that I was in debt.
405. Mr Seow, you are not conducting this Select Committee.
The Chairman and we are. I am suggesting to you that you are unfit to be a member of the Law Society Council and it is an outrage that you should be the President? --- That is a matter of opinion. My peers ----
406. That for five years, or rather for seven years, every year you signed a declaration of non-indebtedness which was necessary when, in fact, you were overdrawn from $50,000 in 1965 to $199,000 in 1971 with the United Malayan Banking Corporation on an unsecured debt? --- Well, is there anything wrong with that?
407. It was a lie, it's a false declaration. It's against the Instruction Manual, section 111(c), "an officer is considered to be financially embarrassed if at any time his total unsecured debts and liabilities are more than three months' pay"? --- May I, Mr Prime Minister, read to you the rear portion of this particular declaration of indebtedness? The prohibition prescribed is not applicable to overdrafts approved by recognized banks. But the fact
is that I got overdraft from them, yes.
408. And unsecured? --- So what about it? How many people can get unsecured overdrafts?
409. That you were owing them $199,000 at the time of your resignation? --- Yes. So I had.
410. That you were deeply financially embarrassed and yet you signed these declarations? --- Because, as I have told you and which you have refused to see, it does not refer to overdrafts taken from approved banks. That's the reason why.
411. You signed it? --- Of course, I did.
B 64
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow (cont.)
The Prime Minister (cont.)
412. With the same nonchalance as you signed your declaration Minister, was an oversight. If I had known it at the time, as far as I am concerned, that was a technical offence that I committed.
An offence it is. So I admit that.
413. So you are saying that this is only a technical matter and that technically you can get off? --- This particular declaration of indebtedness which I signed every year when I was in the Service is completely true.
414. Do you know why those investigations proceeded? ---
Why? It is quite obvious why.
415. Why? --- Okay, you tell me why?
416. If it is obvious, I want to hear your explanation? ---
Well, maybe my explanation is different from yours.
417. Tell us. I will tell you mine in a moment? --- Yes.
You don't like me to be the President of the Law Society. It is simple as that.
418. No. I am astounded and outraged that a person with your moral qualities is being asked to uphold the integrity of the Bar?
--- And why not, may I ask? If my peers, if the rest of the members of the Bar who know the full circumstances of my two suspensions and
convictions still see me fit to elect me, it is not for this Committee nor for you or indeed anyone to say that I should not be.
419. Mr Seow, when we legislated it never occurred to us for one moment, first, that lawyers of more than 12 years' standing would vote you into the Council and, second, that the Council members, 10 of them, would vote and make you President. And when that happens, the law will be changed because obviously the lawyers are not fit to look after their own affairs. By the time they elected you as President, I am entitled to tell Members of Parliament and Singaporeans that are unfit to govern themselves, a right of government which we, as legislators, have delegated.That is why we are here --- ? --- I accept that.
B 65
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow ( cont. )
The Prime Minister (cont.)
420. To change the law. And if you convince me further that we have not changed it adequately, I will go another step to make sure that this does not happen ever again. It is for me. It is not for you to decide? --- I accept that. But as of now, the fellow members of the Bar, knowing fully what the position is. Look, my life has been an open book. The Straits Times has been canvassing everything about my convictions, my suspension, almost ad nauseam.
So these members know it when they voted me in. They are also thinking people and they know what is right and what is wrong.
421. By that you mean that they can absolve you from all moral blame because they have reposed confidence in you by voting for you? --- I do not know what you mean by morality or ----
422. You have no sense of right or wrong or shame? --- Of course, I have the sense of right and wrong as well as the expression of shame, as I am sure all of you do have. As a matter of record, may I mention this, that I was in fact suspended for one year from the 30th April 1973 to the 29th April 1974. That was my first suspension over that unfortunate Gemini affair. I stood and was elected as a Council member in 1976 and 1977.
423. Carry on? --- I resigned on the 23rd April 1977.
424. Mr Seow, do your assets exceed your liabilities, now at this moment? --- My assets?
425. Can you meet your debts? --- Mr Chairman, Sir, may I again ask you what relevance has this got to do with it?
Chairman] Mr Prime Minister, you better go to another point.
The Prime Minister
426. No. I am suggesting to you, Mr Seow, that such a person is unfit to be Chairman and President of the Law Council? ----
Because I have no money?
427. That you owe money? --- That I owe money?
428. That you cannot pay. Is that not correct? --- I don't think I have to answer this question. Do I, Mr Chairman?
B 66
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
9 OCT 86 - Witness: Mr Francis Seow (cont.)
The Prime Minister (cont.)
429. That you owe money and you cannot pay, that you are unfit to exercise discipline over 1,335 members? --- Mr Chairman, may I have a ruling? Must I answer this?
Chairman
430. Yes, about the discipline of the members? --- Well, as Mr Elias before me has told you, the question of discipline vests basically or mainly in the Supreme Court, in the Chief Justice.
 
Top