Today's TOC has numerous links on Dr Chee

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

A Public Enemy in Singapore
Washington Post

Chee presses judge to rule on the constitution
Singapore Democrats

CSJ : Fool or hero?
Lucky Tan


Singapore Maneuvers In Response to Chee
Far Eastern Economic Review

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

A Public Enemy in Singapore
» Most Popular on washingtonpost.com


By Fred Hiatt
Monday, December 8, 2008; Page A19

Chee Soon Juan spent much of Friday in court. Nothing unusual in that. An opposition leader in Singapore, Chee spends quite a few days in prison and, when he's not in prison, quite a few more in court, as a defendant.

Singapore's ruling party has been in charge for a half-century -- since self-rule began in 1959 -- and the opposition Singapore Democratic Party has never mustered more than three seats in Parliament.

This may be because everyone in Singapore is happy with life. It might also have something to do with the fact that few people would want to live the life of Chee Soon Juan, the SDP's secretary general.

Chee returned to Singapore in 1990 after earning a PhD in neuropsychology at the University of Georgia. Two years later, he lost a bid for Parliament as a member of the SDP. No big deal, you might think, in a country that calls itself a democracy. But he was promptly fired from his university post, ostensibly for misappropriating postage stamps -- and that was just the beginning.

A timeline assembled by Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam, who is assisting Chee, suffers from a certain monotony. An excerpt: "1999: Jailed for speaking in public without a permit. 1999: Jailed for speaking in public without a permit. 1999: Fined for selling books without a permit. 2002: Fined for speaking about the ban on Muslim girls' wearing headscarves. 2002: Jailed for holding a May Day rally. 2006: Jailed for saying that the judiciary is not independent. 2006: Jailed for speaking in public without a permit. 2006: Jailed for attempting to leave Singapore without a permit. 2008: Jailed for saying that the judiciary is not independent."


That is a partial list just of the criminal charges. Chee also has been sued for defamation, most recently this year by Singapore's longtime leader -- now "Minister Mentor" -- Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The Lees objected to an article in the SDP newsletter comparing their government to a charity that had been enmeshed in scandal. A judge ordered Chee to pay them the equivalent of about $400,000.

Chee already had been bankrupted by earlier defamation suits. "I told them to put it on my tab," he joked bleakly to me in a phone conversation Friday. But legal bankruptcy is no joke: It means he cannot run for political office nor leave the country without permission. He has asked for permission 20 times since 2006, he told me, and been turned down each time.

Singapore's ambassador to the United States, Chan Heng Chee, told me that her leaders go to court when their reputation is unfairly sullied because maintaining the trust of the people is so important. Human Rights Watch says that Singapore is "using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech," which, according to the group's deputy Asia director, Elaine Pearson, "makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy." It also makes it difficult for Chee and his wife to feed their children, ages 9, 6 and 4.

Friday, Chee spent the day defending himself against the charge of "attempting to participate in a procession." (Singaporean lawyers are not eager to take his case, he said.) It is one of about nine charges he faces, two relating to his failed effort to hold a protest when World Bank and International Monetary Fund officials were in town in 2006, others related to his efforts to speak out during a 2006 political campaign. Officials say that he has a conscientious-objector strategy of wanting to break laws; he says that, since his applications for permits are always denied, he has no choice if he wants to exercise his right, under Singapore's constitution, to freedom of speech and assembly.

I asked why he persists, against such odds, and he spoke of the importance of democracy and human rights and openness in government. Then he turned the question around: Why, he asked, do the Lees persist?

"If the government here is doing so well, why is it so afraid to say, 'We'll just ask for a mandate from the people, and we'll get it?' " Chee said. "Why go to such extent to stifle free opinion and dissent?"

Singapore is, by many standards, doing remarkably well. Economic output per person is more than $27,000, 31st in the world and way ahead of its neighbors, according to the Economist. In China's elite Communist Party school, Singapore is cited as a model of how to maintain one-party rule while growing economically -- and not having to keep too many people in jail.

Ambassador Chan says that her country must have a "tighter democracy" than America's, because it is a small, multiethnic city-state in a challenging region -- a rowboat next to America's aircraft carrier.

"In an aircraft carrier, you can be playing soccer in one corner and have jets taking off in another, and the carrier remains stable," she told me. "In a rowboat, it makes sense for everyone to row in the same direction."

Amsterdam says that in his experience, which includes representing persecuted clients in Russia and elsewhere, governments do not go to great lengths to monopolize the media and control speech unless there is something they would rather their people not know. If he is right, Chee Soon Juan's rap sheet would indicate there is much this government would rather not share with its public.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Chee presses judge to rule on the constitution
Sunday, 07 December 2008
Singapore Democrats

Do the police in Singapore have the right to ban public demonstrations and processions purely based on their "policy position"? Or is such a policy ultra vires (beyond the scope of its power) of the Singapore Constitution?

This question was asked of District Judge Toh Yong Joo in the on-going trial of the four activists charged with attempting to stage a procession during the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting in September 2006.


Last Thursday Dr Chee Soon Juan, one of the defendants, asked the Judge to make a ruling on the matter. Judge Toh, however, refused.

On Friday, Dr Chee pressed the point again. Citing authorities, including a judgment by England's Lord Justice Woolf which former Chief Justice Yong Pung How had relied on, the Singapore Democrats' secretary-general said that the Subordinate Courts had the power to rule on such a matter.

"Lord Justice Woolf stated in his decision that a criminal court can determine the matter if a policy of the executive is 'on the face of it' contradictory of the constitution." Dr Chee pointed out.

"I decline to making any such findings, I reserve my judgment until after hearing all evidence," Judge Toh replied.

But in Woolf's decision, it was determined that such an issue "is a matter of law whether, for example, a byelaw [policy] is unreasonable in operation or is out with the authorising power." And it such an instance "no evidence is required; the court can decide the issue by looking at the terms of the primary legislation [Constitution] and the subordinate legislation [policy] which is alleged to be invalid." (emphasis added)

One of the prosecution witnesses, licensing officer Marc E, had already testified that the police have a written document that expressly forbids demonstrations of any nature. What other evidence does a judge need to rule on this matter?

But the Judge still refused: "I repeat my stand, I decline to making any such findings."

Sensing that the Judge was unsure of the issue, Dr Chee then asked him to refer the matter to the High Court for adjudication, a mechanism provided for in the Subordinate Courts Act where a lower court judge has the discretion of referring a constitutional issue to the High Court.

The Judge again refused: "I decline to exercise my power to refer this matter to the High Court under section 56A of the Sub Courts Act as I see no reason why the case should not proceed."

"We are talking about fundamental freedoms of not just the four of us seated here in this courtroom but the freedoms of all Singaporeans," Dr Chee pressed on. "This issue goes to the heart of our Constitution and whether we are a nation of laws. As I have pointed out, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What the police have done is substantively invalid of the Constitution."

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng interjected and, in an unbelievable adulteration of logic, argued that the police have said that they would reject any application for a demonstration.

"This clearly shows that there was no discriminating policy, and therefore no basis to suggest that there was any contravention of the Constitution," the prosecutor comically offered. But she was dead serious.

Dr Chee replied: "You don't need to have a PhD to see that there is a contravention of the Constitution. If you can read and reason, you will be able to see that Article 14 of the Constitution says one thing and the police are doing something diametrically opposite.

"It seems that the Singapore establishment is the only place that cannot see this contravention. Everyone else, including the International Bar Association, legal scholars, senior lawyers, sees this. No one believes that this kind of policy is not in direct contravention of our Constitution.

"If Your Honour can see that the two are in conflict, then rule in our favour. If not, rule against us and we can then get on with the rest of the hearing. But either way make a ruling, don't procrastinate. And if you cannot decide then refer the matter to the High Court."

The Judge declined to do all three, indicating that he would decide on this at the close of the prosecution's case.

The trial at Subordinate Court 19 resumes on Tuesday.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Tuesday, December 09, 2008
CSJ : Fool or hero?

"What is the difference between being a fool and a hero? .....Timing"
- TV Serial , Tour of Duty, 1987-1990.
.
When I was young, I loved this TV series called Tour Of Duty. It was about the adventures of a platoon in the Vietnam War. You do learn a few things about loyalty, heroism, comaradarie and patriotism watching it. In one of the episodes, an entertainment unit (something like our own Music Drama Company) came over to entertain them. After the show, one of the entertainers came over to talk to the guys in the platoon. He was disappointed that he got drafted to army to perform in a band, he wanted to serve his country by fighting and had requested for a combat posting. He was full of idealism and patriotism. As soon as he left, the guys started laughing at him and calling him a fool. Here was a guy surrounded by pretty girls everyday living the good life singing his favorite songs and he wanted risk his life to join them in the jungle fighting vietcongs....oh what an idiot.
.
A week later the entertainer turned up at the platoon to the dismay of the everyone - of all the platoons in Vietnam, he got posted to this one. They all find his patriotism and idealism difficult to accept. Is this guy delusional or what? Driven by his beliefs, he did everything with pride and honor and that was seen by his platoon mates as something foolish. One day there a few vietcongs were spotted near the camp and the platoon was sent on a mission to hunt them down. Everyone in the platoon except the entertainer was cursing their bad luck. The entertainer as usual performed his duty enthusiastically - that really got on the nerve of everyone who by then had developed a dislike for him. The platoon set off on their mission, trudging through m&d and haunted by gunshots fired in all directions. The ghostly enemy was again toying with their minds and causing them to be fearful. The gunshots stopped for while and the platoon found a spot to take a 5 minute break. While sitting around, the vietcongs lobbed grenade right in front of them. They looked at each other in the next few seconds - you can tell from their eyes ..."this is it guys...our turn to go". The entertainer dived onto the live grenade using his body as a shield. The grenade went off killing the entertainer but everyone else was saved. It was only at that moment that everyone realised he was a hero. It was only when he sacrificed himself for them that they understood that his beliefs, ideals and patriotism actually mattered.
.
While Tan Kin Lian stepped forward when he was badly needed in the minibond saga, Chee started his fight when we were all looking forward to the Swiss standard of living in the 90s. While we were all busy shopping for fondue pots, his message that change was much needed fell on deaf ears. People are just not very receptive when they have the money to eat at restaurants, shop along Orchard and decide which FullHD TV to buy. They can't see the importance of the ideals of justice and equality when their incomes are increasing. It is only when they lose their jobs and can only find one that pays $1000 a month that they realise the importance of a minimum wage. It is only when they cannot afford their utilities and have it cut off tha they see the importance of helping the poor. It is only when they need that expensive cancer drug or have a newborn with congenital disease that is not covered by their insurance policy that they understand the inherent weakness of medical care based on insurance. The wool over the people's eyes can be especially thick when the govt can manage the information in the newspapers and tell everyone what they want them to hear.
.
If they can make a man who is driven by nothing but his ideals and his belief that we deserve our freedom and equality out to be a fool, they can also turn their broken policies into masterpieces. In the show, the sergent was asked by his men, how did they ever make this mistake of calling a real hero a fool. The sergent replied it was all timing. People will not see the value of your sacrifice until they need it. Tan Kin Lian took a great risk to step forward in a big way - in the past he did take on smaller issues like Income's bonus policies etc - but only when he was needed...people call him a hero and rightfully so because he made a big sacrifice. In some ways, the current financial crisis is like the grenade that went off in the show, times have changed and perceptions will change. People will come to undertand the importance of democracy, justice and equality. Sacrifices that were made in the past... people will come understand. When JBJ passed away, the PM called him a man who tried to "destroy the system"....but the people....they are all beginning to see that he was trying to improve the system. Where is the delusion? It is high up in the ivory tower our elites have build for themselves and their ridiculous salaries. The real fools among us are the people who lost more than $18B of tax payers money mis-investing in troubled western banks and those who lost millions of TC money. They are the ones who should be answering questions, not Chee and his supporters who were hauled into court for wearing T-shirts.

posted by LuckySingaporean at 4:26 AM

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Singapore Maneuvers In Response to Chee
December 2008
Singapore Maneuvers In Response to Chee
by Garry Rodan
Posted December 5, 2008

For Singapore, 2008 has been a bumper year for legal actions and decisions against the international media and political opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party, underlining the government’s resolve to keep political comment and expression within tight limits. Yet in his August National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also announced a watering down of restrictions on political uses of electronic media and outdoor protest rallies. “Our rules governing politics must also keep up to date,” Mr. Lee explained.

While these may seem like divergent patterns, political change around the edges has long been a feature of the PAP’s approach to preserving the political system’s fundamentals. PAP leaders would not likely dispute that. More difficult for them to concede is the extent to which PAP political battles and system tinkering are shaped by the strategies of Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan. Mr. Chee may have been neutralized as an electoral force, but he exerts a growing influence on the political agenda of the PAP.

In the mold of the late J.B. Jeyaretnam, Mr. Chee dares to scrutinize PAP governance claims and underlying premises of authoritarian rule with a determination uncharacteristic of the PAP’s few opponents in parliament. But unlike Jeyaretnam, who spent much of his life fighting legal battles undermining his electoral politics, Mr. Chee incorporates these battles into extraparliamentary campaigns. This partly explains his polarizing effect within Singapore. Many middle-class professionals who like to think of themselves as politically progressive find Mr. Chee’s preparedness to risk everything for his beliefs too confrontational. More than reflecting tactical differences, though, this highlights contrasting depths of opposition to PAP institutions.

Singapore’s authorities already enjoy a reputation as the world’s most litigation prone, but even by local standards this year has been exceptional. Not only was the REVIEW in September found to have defamed Prime Minister Lee and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, with an appeal now pending, but The Wall Street Journal Asia was also fined a record amount for contempt of court in a finding last month.

Meanwhile, three SDP members were given jail sentences in November. Their offence was to wear T-shirts adorned with a kangaroo in a judge’s robe outside the Supreme Court in May during a defamation trial against SDP colleagues Mr. Chee and his sister Chee Siok Chin. The Chees too were sentenced to jail for contempt after the judge in the defamation case contended they had not only accused the court of being biased and pre-judging the case, but also disobeyed orders to cease particular lines of questioning. Comments about the way the presiding judge handled that case also landed blogger Gopalan Nair a three-month jail sentence. There could be more jail terms to come, as another 19 SDP members were charged in October for illegal assembly and participating in an illegal procession in March this year.

An interesting dimension to the flurry of legal actions this year has been the eagerness of the new attorney general, Walter Woon, to instigate contempt of court charges. Mr. Woon took the opportunity of his first public address as attorney general to attack what he described as human-rights “fanatics.” Significantly, he directed these remarks to an audience of lawyers and embassy officials at a Law Society gathering to launch its Public and International Law Committee’s lecture series. The first project of the new committee is to study the relevance of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in Singapore law. In the 1990s, Mr. Woon was, among other things, a nominated member of parliament who some Singaporeans hoped might be a voice for liberal reform.

Under crossexamination by Mr. Chee during his defamation case in June, Minister Mentor Lee depicted the SDP leader as a political failure, contrasting him unfavorably with Singapore’s two elected opposition members of parliament, Singapore People’s Party’s Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party. Yet Mr. Chee’s strategy of challenging—and breaking—what he sees as unjust laws circumscribing political engagement is not just drawing international attention, but inspiring more SDP colleagues not to be intimidated by the threat of legal actions. Mr. Chee also gets to directly confront and question Mr. Lee through the courts.

Examination of the issues behind the surge in court cases and adjustments to electronic media and public demonstration laws underscores the Chee factor. Let us look first at the legal actions against the REVIEW and the Journal. The former centered around a July 2006 article by editor Hugo Restall entitled “Singapore’s Martyr: Chee Soon Juan” that scrutinized PAP governance and afforded Mr. Chee’s views a space not available in Singapore’s government-controlled domestic media.

Similarly, at issue in the contempt of court case against the Journal were two editorials—“Democracy in Singapore” (June 26, 2008) and “Judging Singapore’s Judiciary” (July 15, 2008)—and a published letter by Mr. Chee. The first of these editorials centered on the defamation case against Mr. Chee, the latter on a report by the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association critical of Singapore’s standards in the areas of freedom of expression and assembly and in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The IBA’s decision to hold its 2007 conference in the city-state had earlier been portrayed by the government as an authoritative endorsement of Singapore’s legal system. However, speaking from the floor as a registered conference participant, Mr. Chee exploited the meeting to turn the IBA’s critical spotlight on that very system.

Increasingly, the PAP is explaining and defending its legal and political systems to audiences aroused by Mr. Chee. Among Mr. Chee’s new supporters is a team of international lawyers headed by Canadian Robert Amsterdam, who defended Mikhail Khodorovsky and other high-profile Russians against the Putin regime, British defamation expert Anthony Julius, who represented Lady Diana, and American law professor William Burke-White. These lawyers have committed to assisting Mr. Chee in future legal cases and to further highlighting his treatment in international fora, including the United Nations. They also intend to register the SDP in their jurisdictions to enable it to continue its activities as a legal entity, even if the unfolding legal cases bankrupt and disqualify the party in Singapore.

Prime Minister Lee’s National Day Rally announcements also concede something to Mr. Chee. Political films were banned in 1998, two years after Mr. Chee applied for a license to sell a videotape on the SDP. A month before the 2006 general election, the government also banned political podcasts and vodcasts by candidates and parties during election campaigns. Again, Mr. Chee and the SDP led the way in harnessing these new technologies for political engagement. Material was consequently restricted to candidate biodata on party Web sites.

However, this official position was defied by bloggers during the 2006 election. Mobile-phone videos of most opposition rallies were uploaded to the video-sharing site YouTube and crossposted on blogs. Given the 2006 election result, the PAP may have concluded that their fears about new media were exaggerated. At the same time, Mr. Nair’s imprisonment serves as a powerful demonstration that Prime Minister Lee’s insistence on “accountability and responsibility” in the use of these media technologies can be imposed where authorities choose.

Meanwhile, the PAP is gearing up its video strategies at each of its 84 branches, including the utilization of the social-networking site Facebook. Liberalizing rules governing these technologies is necessary for the ruling party to better engage younger Singaporeans.

The government’s decision to sanction a designated outdoor space for public demonstrations is surely an attempt to defuse Mr. Chee’s campaign for more expansive freedoms of peaceful public assembly. Being repeatedly unsuccessful in attempts to obtain requisite police permits for outdoor demonstrations led Mr. Chee and his SDP colleagues to deliberately break the law to highlight what they see as a discrepancy between the Constitution and the practice of law on freedom of expression. The global spectacle during the 2006 World Bank/International Monetary Fund conference in 2006 in Singapore of an ugly stand-off between police and SDP activists did Singapore’s image little good.

The Singapore government has since cautiously and conditionally endorsed the concept of outdoor demonstrations at inner city Hong Lim Park. Protest meetings there now require less onerous online registration through an official Web site. A few groups have used the system, protesting transport-fare increases, censorship of university media and investment losses in Lehman Brothers minibonds.

But while Mr. Chee may exert an influence over the PAP’s political agenda, there remain serious obstacles to broad domestic appeal. One is that middle-class professionals enjoying material and social status benefits under the PAP are uncomfortable with Mr. Chee’s modus operandi and unambiguous rejection of PAP values. Another is the effectiveness of the PAP’s character assassination of Mr. Chee through the government-controlled domestic media. This may explain why the international media’s sympathetic treatment especially irritates Singapore’s elite.

Garry Rodan is director of the Asia Research Centre and professor of politics and international studies at Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

 

[leetahbar]

why are u so IN on chee? u hvn't answered whether u have linked up with any particular member from the F4 who are now in SDP?

this is very important to many here cos a different perception would conceptuaalise by your trueful answer.

 

[leetahbar]

just like AVANTAS. if he admits he is actually THINKNOTHING and all his akas, who would most of us think about his website?

but AVANTAS doesn't need to respond cos the answer is already so obvious.:oIo: he has stopped attacking wp n people like gohmengseng, locke, sylvia lim and many others but he hasn't given up attacking andrew loh.

WHY?:oIo:

 

[Wisely]

why are u so IN on chee? u hvn't answered whether u have linked up with any particular member from the F4 who are now in SDP?

this is very important to many here cos a different perception would conceptuaalise by your trueful answer.

Who are you to criticize others? You similarly declined to answer questions on this F4 when asked by this person.

 

[leetahbar]

the answers were already splashed all over. why is he so defensive against the F4? unless he could have linked up with lamei's notorious F&D, his opinions could not be viewed as neutral and opened.

if not, it's just as biased as mine cos i ve never agreed with chee. now with the inclusion of F4 in SDP, it just ehances the disagreement.::p

 

[chinkangkor]

why are u so IN on chee? u hvn't answered whether u have linked up with any particular member from the F4 who are now in SDP?

this is very important to many here cos a different perception would conceptuaalise by your trueful answer.

The substance of the posts is more important than the persons who post.

Even if it is the same person posting different views, it will still add diversity to the discussions. If all the people post the same view, then there is no value add to the discussion.

Focus on the messages, not the messengers.

 

[myfoot123]

Looking at the exchange between the judges and himself, Dr Chee is really a person of good calibre compared to many now sitting in parliament. He has full grasped of Singapore fundamentals rights unlike many sinkies and if he is not elected to represent the citizens, it will be hard to find someone who can really fight hard for us in words and in actions. The court is in need of a major spring cleaning, they are all LEE's men in robe.

 

[leetahbar]

The substance of the posts is more important than the persons who post.

Even if it is the same person posting different views, it will still add diversity to the discussions. If all the people post the same view, then there is no value add to the discussion.

Focus on the messages, not the messengers.

thanks for saying that. views differ each time the tides change. but so far, chee hasn't changed my biased and prejudiced view about he, sdp or his new lackeys of F4.

and please. those who do not like chee and his sdppies doesn't mean they'd love the paps. that's a very wrong presumption!

 

[leetahbar]

Looking at the exchange between the judges and himself, Dr Chee is really a person of good calibre compared to many now sitting in parliament. He has full grasped of Singapore fundamentals rights unlike many sinkies and if he is not elected to represent the citizens, it will be hard to find someone who can really fight hard for us in words and in actions. The court is in need of a major spring cleaning, they are all LEE's men in robe.

he repeats what he did to prof. vasoo. he taped the court proceedings and broadcast it in sdp website. was that ethical in any way?

 

[guavatree]

was that ethical in any way?

bapok fake monk PAP dog

your ethical ways are stealing cheating and conning!

stealing temple money

stealing handphones

bash your own father

call your mother LAUCHEEBYE

con property

 

[cheongsimon]

Chee Soon Juan is nothing more than a LIAR and a CHEAT. I must admit he is good at manipulating facts to distort the truth.

Go see the facts by yourself and you will see what a liar he is.

Wonder why these angmoh journalist like to listen to his lies.....

 

[leetahbar]

there are many of his followers, idolisers and even worshippers who only see a splinter in critics' eyes but not the log sticking out chee's.

should chee decide to indulge in religious fanaticism first and then go into politic using his brand of religious fervent blending with his political hooliganism, this land could be doomed!!:p

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Aiyah I have long since obliged you with the answers.

Now why don't you now come clean with your answers Bob the hypocrite?

why are u so IN on chee? u hvn't answered whether u have linked up with any particular member from the F4 who are now in SDP?

this is very important to many here cos a different perception would conceptuaalise by your trueful answer.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Don't BS Bob the hypocrite. Why are you suddenly so coy and shy away from coming clean with the answers to my questions? Especially since I have long since obliged you with my answers to your questions.

As for my comments on Dr Chee/SDP, F4 or any other topic for that matter, forumers can draw their own opinions on the same. I am open and have nothing to hide. For the record I had and continue to be critical of all the 3 above when I disagree with certain aspects of their stand/position/policies/posts etc. Saying that at the end of the day it is only my opinion though.

You see Bob the hypocrite, unlike you, my opinions are not clouded by personal petty agendas.

the answers were already splashed all over. why is he so defensive against the F4? unless he could have linked up with lamei's notorious F&D, his opinions could not be viewed as neutral and opened.

if not, it's just as biased as mine cos i ve never agreed with chee. now with the inclusion of F4 in SDP, it just ehances the disagreement.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This is the great pity and shame. Chee and even his sister would probably be a good change to see in parliament. Unfortunately they have chosen other strategies/tactics for better or worse.

Saying that again I say Dr Chee would not make for a successful political leader because he appears to lack guile, canny attitude, political nous, ability to enforce party discipline and also too much of an idealist. He appears more cut out as a political activist.

Looking at the exchange between the judges and himself, Dr Chee is really a person of good calibre compared to many now sitting in parliament. He has full grasped of Singapore fundamentals rights unlike many sinkies and if he is not elected to represent the citizens, it will be hard to find someone who can really fight hard for us in words and in actions. The court is in need of a major spring cleaning, they are all LEE's men in robe.

 

[methink]

Looking at the exchange between the judges and himself, Dr Chee is really a person of good calibre compared to many now sitting in parliament. He has full grasped of Singapore fundamentals rights unlike many sinkies and if he is not elected to represent the citizens, it will be hard to find someone who can really fight hard for us in words and in actions. The court is in need of a major spring cleaning, they are all LEE's men in robe.

Yes we truly need more men of Dr Chee's calibre. The PAP cannot be allowed to run roughshod over us!