This is the explanation that Shanmugam provided during a Q&A with an international panel. (Details in the URL)
Some time things like this are so ingrained via the state press that people including Shanmugam who is legally trained can end up believing in bullshit.
Background:
Parliament had debated on providing a $10B lifeline during the 97 Asian Financial crisis to help Indonesia. It was approved but never disbursed.
Chee typical of his habit of not doing proper research and despite not learning from an earlier comical episode with S Kunalen during the Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry on Healthcare costs asked GCT what happenned to the money in Jurong during the GE campaign.
A rational party or person would have clarified that the loan was never disbursed and chided Chee for his lack of doing his homework and or making claims that are not factual.
Yet GCT and the PAP decided to suing and ended bankrupting Chee. At no time was Goh was labelled a liar, thief or anything to that effect. The worst a reasonable person would have concluded was that taxpayers money was wrongly appropriated which falls within the ambit of even a half baked politician.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20091031/Transcript.pdf
"Let me give you an example you did not mention Dr
Chee. During the 2001 elections, or 97, I cannot remember. He
made some allegations.
The suggestion was, that the Prime Minister in public, he heckled
him, and said, suggested that the Prime Minister had lied to
Parliament and the public about US$10 billion, and that US$10
Billion had been loaned to President Suharto. Now a simple
question would be: “Was there a US$10 billion loan?” He wasn’t
bothered to ask. Instead he made a series of accusations, and
very serious accusations. If those accusations were true the
Prime Minister isn’t fit to be the Prime Minister. Why do we need
this type of rubbish in political discourse?
The Prime Minister had explained to Parliament and do you know
what the fact was? The fact was that there was no US$10 billion
loan, there was no $100 million, there was no $1 million, there
was not a cent loaned. In American public discourse, you feel that
these sorts of hard knocks, unfair or fair, do not really matter. If
you get into the public sphere you must be prepared to deal with
it. We are not saying our skin is any thinner. But, we say why
can’t we keep the public discourse governed by integrity. And he
then initially withdrew his remarks, but then subsequently
withdrew his retraction. And therefore the lawsuit went on. And
likewise with the various Mr Jeyaretnam cases. I did not come
here to deal with all of them. But the broader point, and let’s take
it as a matter of philosophy, we believe in our libel laws, and
that’s part of this government’s platform. You may disagree."
Some time things like this are so ingrained via the state press that people including Shanmugam who is legally trained can end up believing in bullshit.
Background:
Parliament had debated on providing a $10B lifeline during the 97 Asian Financial crisis to help Indonesia. It was approved but never disbursed.
Chee typical of his habit of not doing proper research and despite not learning from an earlier comical episode with S Kunalen during the Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry on Healthcare costs asked GCT what happenned to the money in Jurong during the GE campaign.
A rational party or person would have clarified that the loan was never disbursed and chided Chee for his lack of doing his homework and or making claims that are not factual.
Yet GCT and the PAP decided to suing and ended bankrupting Chee. At no time was Goh was labelled a liar, thief or anything to that effect. The worst a reasonable person would have concluded was that taxpayers money was wrongly appropriated which falls within the ambit of even a half baked politician.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20091031/Transcript.pdf
"Let me give you an example you did not mention Dr
Chee. During the 2001 elections, or 97, I cannot remember. He
made some allegations.
The suggestion was, that the Prime Minister in public, he heckled
him, and said, suggested that the Prime Minister had lied to
Parliament and the public about US$10 billion, and that US$10
Billion had been loaned to President Suharto. Now a simple
question would be: “Was there a US$10 billion loan?” He wasn’t
bothered to ask. Instead he made a series of accusations, and
very serious accusations. If those accusations were true the
Prime Minister isn’t fit to be the Prime Minister. Why do we need
this type of rubbish in political discourse?
The Prime Minister had explained to Parliament and do you know
what the fact was? The fact was that there was no US$10 billion
loan, there was no $100 million, there was no $1 million, there
was not a cent loaned. In American public discourse, you feel that
these sorts of hard knocks, unfair or fair, do not really matter. If
you get into the public sphere you must be prepared to deal with
it. We are not saying our skin is any thinner. But, we say why
can’t we keep the public discourse governed by integrity. And he
then initially withdrew his remarks, but then subsequently
withdrew his retraction. And therefore the lawsuit went on. And
likewise with the various Mr Jeyaretnam cases. I did not come
here to deal with all of them. But the broader point, and let’s take
it as a matter of philosophy, we believe in our libel laws, and
that’s part of this government’s platform. You may disagree."
