Big thunderstorm now, it is as if the heavens are crying for JBJ. Really a sad, dark and stormy night for me. I am sure he has gone to a better place. I am also sure he was not afraid of death, because they took everything from him he died with nothing to fear, but God.
The type of barriers and hurdles placed in front of him would make 99% of people give up.
Appeal to the Privy Council
Since the trial had been held in a district court, and not the High Court, Jeyaretnam was able to appeal against his disbarment to the Privy Council in Britain. The Council duly reversed the judgment. This was what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to say on this episode when they delivered their judgment, allowing Jeyaretnam's appeal against being struck off from the roll of Singapore lawyers:
"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore." [6]
The right of appeal to the Privy Council was severely restricted by a change in the law the following year.
Disqualification
Following the decision of the Privy Council, Jeyaretnam then wrote to the President to ask that the convictions be removed as a result of the Privy Council's decision. The President, on the advice of the cabinet, refused to remove the convictions and Jeyaretnam remained disqualified until 1991. Singapore judges also refused to reverse his convictions or reverse the fine, which prevented him from standing for office until 1997.
In the 1988 election, Jeyaretnam was barred from contesting due to his 5-year disqualification. However, he did attend election rallies to help out his fellow party members. At an election rally, he challenged the PAP's claim to being an open and transparent government, and asked whether any investigation had been conducted as to how the Minister for National Development, Teh Cheang Wan, had obtained the tablets with which he had committed suicide, in the midst of being investigated for corruption. Jeyaretnam also asked whether the then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, had replied to a letter written to him by Teh.
Further defamation suits
After the elections, Lee commenced proceedings against Jeyaretnam, alleging that the latter had slandered him as his words at the election rally were understood to mean that Lee had committed a criminal offence by aiding and abetting Teh to commit suicide, and thereby, had covered up on corruption. The action was heard by Justice Lai Kew Chai who found a case against Jeyaretnam and ordered him to pay Lee, damages of SGD 260,000, together with interest on the amount and costs.
Jeyaretnam lost the appeal against that judgement. He had wanted to appeal to the Privy Council, but to do that, he had to obtain Lee's consent before the hearing by the Court of Appeal. This was because the law relating to appeals to the Privy Council had been changed after the Privy Council's judgement restoring Jeyaretnam to the roll of advocates and solicitors. Appeals to the Privy Council by lawyers from any order made by a court of three judges under the Legal Profession Act were abolished. In criminal cases, an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Privy Council was also abolished. In civil cases, an appeal is allowed only if the other party consented to it. Lee did not give his consent.
In 1995, Jeyaretnam authored an article in The Hammer, the Workers' Party newspaper, that alleged that a number of those involved in an event called the 'Tamil Language Week' were government "stooges". For this, he was sued twice for libel, resulting in total damages of SGD 465,000 and SGD 250,000 in court costs.
In 1997, Jeyaretnam was selected as a non-constituency MP. After the election, eleven defamation suits were filed against him for saying the following words in one of the election rallies: "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me, two reports he has made to the police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his people". Goh Chok Tong alleged that his "reputation, moral authority and leadership standing have been gravely injured both local and internationally", and during cross-examination by Jeyaretnam's counsel George Carman Q.C., likened the statement to throwing a Molotov ****tail. However, on further questioning, Goh also stated that "it has been a good year" for him and his standing as a leader had not been injured.[2] Trial judge Rajendran J found Jeyaretnam liable and ordered him to pay "derisory" damages of SGD 20,000. However, upon the plaintiff's appeal, the damages were raised to SGD 100,000 plus SGD 20,000 in court costs. Rajendran was later dismissed from the bench.[2]
Bankruptcy
In 2001, after his damages installment was overdue by one day, Jeyaretnam was declared bankrupt, disbarred and prevented from taking part in the elections that year. He resigned from the leadership of the Workers' Party in October 2001, and subsisted by hawking on the street, copies of his book, entitled Make it Right for Singapore, which mainly contains his parliamentary speeches between 1997 and 2000. He also authored another book, entitled, The Hachet Man of Singapore, in which it depicts his trials in court over the statement he made during an election rally in a stadium (see above).
Documentary on J.B. Jeyaratnam
On January 4, 2002, a documentary on Jeyaretnam, entitled A Vision of Persistence, which showed Jeyaretnam, a former MP and erstwhile leader of the opposition Workers' Party, selling his books in public places and meeting with his supporters, was withdrawn from the Singapore International Film Festival on fears that it could have violated a law banning political films. The makers of the 15-minute documentary had submitted written apologies and withdrew it from being screened after they were told that they could be charged in court. The film-makers, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, had claimed that they had just chanced upon a man selling books on a street and decided to make a documentary on him, unaware at first that he was an opposition figure.
A little-known law, called the 'Films Act' [7], bans the making, distribution and showing of films containing "wholly or partly, either partisan or biased references to, or comments on any political matter." The source, which was not named, said a government official went to the school and asked: "How can your staff do this sort of thing?" A person familiar with the case told the newspaper: "It's a sort of paranoia on the part of the authorities."
Philip Cheah, the director of the film festival, said that he saw the documentary, but declined to comment on its contents. "It should have been shown at the festival. Then people can decide," he said, adding that, as far as he knows, this was the first film that was considered political under the Films Act.
Appeal for early discharge from bankruptcy
On October 25, 2004, Jeyaretnam appealed for an early discharge from bankruptcy so that he could contest in the coming election that year. He appeared before a three-judge Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest Court, asking to be discharged. The official assignee, however, opposed the appeal, claiming that Jeyaretnam had lied about his assets. Representing himself during the two-hour hearing, Jeyaretnam appealed on the grounds that he wanted another chance to contribute to society. He offered to pay one-third of the more than SGD 600,000 he still owed his claimants. Thus far, Jeyaretnam had paid up less than SGD 30,000.
Sarjit Singh, the official assignee, opposed Jeyaretnam's appeal, claiming that he was "the most dishonest bankrupt I have ever come across". He said this because Jeyaretnam had not declared a property he had bought in Johor Bahru, worth more than SGD 350,000. At the same time, Davinder Singh, the legal counsel acting on behalf of eight of the claimants, argued that this case threw up issues far wider than just Jeyaretnam's appeal. He said that if Jeyaretnam was discharged as a bankrupt, it could set a dangerous precedent and the courts could be flooded with similar appeals from bankrupts seeking early discharge.
On March 7 2006, Jeyaratnam announced that he was making a last-minute bid to get out of bankruptcy in time for a shot at the upcoming polls. He applied to pay off all his debts, totalling about SGD 600,000, to wipe his slate clean. A court hearing was set for March 20 2006. He told The Straits Times he had enough money finally to settle the debts, which arose from defamation suits in 1996 and 1997.
Formation of Reform Party
On June 18 2008, Reform Party chairman Ng Teck Siong announced that the Registry of Societies had approved the party's formation a day before, and Jeyaratnam was the interim secretary-general of the party. [8]
Death
Jeyaratnam died of heart failure early in the morning of 30 September 2008. He was 82.[3]
He did all these for the common people but alas the commoners don't deserve him.
A tribute to JBJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svVij6V99SU
:(:(:(
The type of barriers and hurdles placed in front of him would make 99% of people give up.
Appeal to the Privy Council
Since the trial had been held in a district court, and not the High Court, Jeyaretnam was able to appeal against his disbarment to the Privy Council in Britain. The Council duly reversed the judgment. This was what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to say on this episode when they delivered their judgment, allowing Jeyaretnam's appeal against being struck off from the roll of Singapore lawyers:
"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore." [6]
The right of appeal to the Privy Council was severely restricted by a change in the law the following year.
Disqualification
Following the decision of the Privy Council, Jeyaretnam then wrote to the President to ask that the convictions be removed as a result of the Privy Council's decision. The President, on the advice of the cabinet, refused to remove the convictions and Jeyaretnam remained disqualified until 1991. Singapore judges also refused to reverse his convictions or reverse the fine, which prevented him from standing for office until 1997.
In the 1988 election, Jeyaretnam was barred from contesting due to his 5-year disqualification. However, he did attend election rallies to help out his fellow party members. At an election rally, he challenged the PAP's claim to being an open and transparent government, and asked whether any investigation had been conducted as to how the Minister for National Development, Teh Cheang Wan, had obtained the tablets with which he had committed suicide, in the midst of being investigated for corruption. Jeyaretnam also asked whether the then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, had replied to a letter written to him by Teh.
Further defamation suits
After the elections, Lee commenced proceedings against Jeyaretnam, alleging that the latter had slandered him as his words at the election rally were understood to mean that Lee had committed a criminal offence by aiding and abetting Teh to commit suicide, and thereby, had covered up on corruption. The action was heard by Justice Lai Kew Chai who found a case against Jeyaretnam and ordered him to pay Lee, damages of SGD 260,000, together with interest on the amount and costs.
Jeyaretnam lost the appeal against that judgement. He had wanted to appeal to the Privy Council, but to do that, he had to obtain Lee's consent before the hearing by the Court of Appeal. This was because the law relating to appeals to the Privy Council had been changed after the Privy Council's judgement restoring Jeyaretnam to the roll of advocates and solicitors. Appeals to the Privy Council by lawyers from any order made by a court of three judges under the Legal Profession Act were abolished. In criminal cases, an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Privy Council was also abolished. In civil cases, an appeal is allowed only if the other party consented to it. Lee did not give his consent.
In 1995, Jeyaretnam authored an article in The Hammer, the Workers' Party newspaper, that alleged that a number of those involved in an event called the 'Tamil Language Week' were government "stooges". For this, he was sued twice for libel, resulting in total damages of SGD 465,000 and SGD 250,000 in court costs.
In 1997, Jeyaretnam was selected as a non-constituency MP. After the election, eleven defamation suits were filed against him for saying the following words in one of the election rallies: "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me, two reports he has made to the police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his people". Goh Chok Tong alleged that his "reputation, moral authority and leadership standing have been gravely injured both local and internationally", and during cross-examination by Jeyaretnam's counsel George Carman Q.C., likened the statement to throwing a Molotov ****tail. However, on further questioning, Goh also stated that "it has been a good year" for him and his standing as a leader had not been injured.[2] Trial judge Rajendran J found Jeyaretnam liable and ordered him to pay "derisory" damages of SGD 20,000. However, upon the plaintiff's appeal, the damages were raised to SGD 100,000 plus SGD 20,000 in court costs. Rajendran was later dismissed from the bench.[2]
Bankruptcy
In 2001, after his damages installment was overdue by one day, Jeyaretnam was declared bankrupt, disbarred and prevented from taking part in the elections that year. He resigned from the leadership of the Workers' Party in October 2001, and subsisted by hawking on the street, copies of his book, entitled Make it Right for Singapore, which mainly contains his parliamentary speeches between 1997 and 2000. He also authored another book, entitled, The Hachet Man of Singapore, in which it depicts his trials in court over the statement he made during an election rally in a stadium (see above).
Documentary on J.B. Jeyaratnam
On January 4, 2002, a documentary on Jeyaretnam, entitled A Vision of Persistence, which showed Jeyaretnam, a former MP and erstwhile leader of the opposition Workers' Party, selling his books in public places and meeting with his supporters, was withdrawn from the Singapore International Film Festival on fears that it could have violated a law banning political films. The makers of the 15-minute documentary had submitted written apologies and withdrew it from being screened after they were told that they could be charged in court. The film-makers, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, had claimed that they had just chanced upon a man selling books on a street and decided to make a documentary on him, unaware at first that he was an opposition figure.
A little-known law, called the 'Films Act' [7], bans the making, distribution and showing of films containing "wholly or partly, either partisan or biased references to, or comments on any political matter." The source, which was not named, said a government official went to the school and asked: "How can your staff do this sort of thing?" A person familiar with the case told the newspaper: "It's a sort of paranoia on the part of the authorities."
Philip Cheah, the director of the film festival, said that he saw the documentary, but declined to comment on its contents. "It should have been shown at the festival. Then people can decide," he said, adding that, as far as he knows, this was the first film that was considered political under the Films Act.
Appeal for early discharge from bankruptcy
On October 25, 2004, Jeyaretnam appealed for an early discharge from bankruptcy so that he could contest in the coming election that year. He appeared before a three-judge Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest Court, asking to be discharged. The official assignee, however, opposed the appeal, claiming that Jeyaretnam had lied about his assets. Representing himself during the two-hour hearing, Jeyaretnam appealed on the grounds that he wanted another chance to contribute to society. He offered to pay one-third of the more than SGD 600,000 he still owed his claimants. Thus far, Jeyaretnam had paid up less than SGD 30,000.
Sarjit Singh, the official assignee, opposed Jeyaretnam's appeal, claiming that he was "the most dishonest bankrupt I have ever come across". He said this because Jeyaretnam had not declared a property he had bought in Johor Bahru, worth more than SGD 350,000. At the same time, Davinder Singh, the legal counsel acting on behalf of eight of the claimants, argued that this case threw up issues far wider than just Jeyaretnam's appeal. He said that if Jeyaretnam was discharged as a bankrupt, it could set a dangerous precedent and the courts could be flooded with similar appeals from bankrupts seeking early discharge.
On March 7 2006, Jeyaratnam announced that he was making a last-minute bid to get out of bankruptcy in time for a shot at the upcoming polls. He applied to pay off all his debts, totalling about SGD 600,000, to wipe his slate clean. A court hearing was set for March 20 2006. He told The Straits Times he had enough money finally to settle the debts, which arose from defamation suits in 1996 and 1997.
Formation of Reform Party
On June 18 2008, Reform Party chairman Ng Teck Siong announced that the Registry of Societies had approved the party's formation a day before, and Jeyaratnam was the interim secretary-general of the party. [8]
Death
Jeyaratnam died of heart failure early in the morning of 30 September 2008. He was 82.[3]
He did all these for the common people but alas the commoners don't deserve him.
A tribute to JBJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svVij6V99SU
:(:(:(
