Judge won't allow questions on police discrimination

[leetahbar]

1.chee was trying to exaggerate himself to be a bigger entity who could antagonise the gabramen.

2. chee was a regular client to gabramen's all-expenses paid resort. of course they have all his personal particulars

3. chee hasn't reached that level to be upgraded to the 6-stars resort at whitley yet.

4. gabramen is allowing chee to carry on and continue his clowning to entertain the peasants who could witness the quality of opp that they might be encountering. in other words, exploiting back chee to discredit the other existing opp parties.

 

[one2unite]

the chao ah kwa PAP dog leetahbar would be here soon to defend his PAP masters ... LOL

You're spot on!

 

[scroobal]

Err ... Wouldn't the witness be subpoenaed by Chee instead of sent by the police department?

Yes, but it is the duty of the judge to ensure a fair hearing. It makes no different if a witness is called by the prosecution or the defence, that witness is compelled by law to testify truthfully unless the judge rules that the line of questioning is irrelevant to the case.

I am sure Chee's point is that he would not be facing the court if his application was considered in a fair and just manner.

I think the magistrate screwed himself up. The magistrate could have held his testimony in camera with the courts cleared if it was sensitive to the state but relevant to the case.

 

[guavatree]

1.chee was trying to exaggerate himself to be a bigger entity who could antagonise the gabramen.

hehe pondan PAP dog you only cum in after 20 odd posts!

would your PAP goodie 2 shoe MP be reducing some NTUC discount vouchers to you?

LOL

 

[leetahbar]

Yes, but it is the duty of the judge to ensure a fair hearing. It makes no different if a witness is called by the prosecution or the defence, that witness is compelled by law to testify truthfully unless the judge rules that the line of questioning is irrelevant to the case.

I am sure Chee's point is that he would not be facing the court if his application was considered in a fair and just manner.

I think the magistrate screwed himself up. The magistrate could have held his testimony in camera with the courts cleared if it was sensitive to the state but relevant to the case.

the trial was about chee n gang answering to their illeegal public antic. chee was trying to change the subject. don't forget he was the defendent.

from the last duel with lau lee & son, he was using the same tactic. the judge had the right to stamp IRRELEVANT and stop chee's sidetracking.

 

[guavatree]

the trial was about chee n gang answering to their illeegal public antic. chee was trying to change the subject. don't forget he was the defendent. from the last duel with lau lee & son, he was using the same tactic. the judge had the right to stamp IRRELEVANT and stop chee's sidetracking.

hah bapok PAP dog so your goodie 2 shoe PAP MP asked you to be alert and work harder ... LOL

 

[Bigfuck]

What we are talking about is how did Chee's date of birth gotten on to the application form, the original of which that Chee submitted through the Internet did not contain a column for his DOB?

The big deal is that, it was not SI Yeo, a junior officer who had purportedly rejected the application but someone else hiding behind poor SI Yeo.

KANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROOKANGAROO

 

[kakowi]

...
I am sure Chee's point is that he would not be facing the court if his application was considered in a fair and just manner.

I think the magistrate screwed himself up. The magistrate could have held his testimony in camera with the courts cleared if it was sensitive to the state but relevant to the case.

That is indeed an excellent argument by CSJ if that is indeed the point he was seeking.

If so, then the judge has decided inappropriately.

To be fair, according to the newspaper report, the judge did asked him on the line of reasoning. Dr Chee's answer was not so succint. Or it may, but not so reported.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

If one makes a police report, the min they get ur NRIC no, your residence comes up. :_)) Its the equivalent of a drivers license in the US.

A PAP Community cycling event is not a political event and hence safe, but an opposition cycling is and hence not safe. The administrative logic leaps are mind boggling indeed and all because the old man has defined a strict need to suppress all potentially political or quasi political events accept those organized by the PAP and the old folks home.

Dr Chee will go to jail again to prove a point which we all know, the PAP is unfair, the PAP uses the law to its advantage with mind boggling leaps of logic etc etc etc.




Locke









QUOTE=scroobal;89860]Now you know why we get tagged a "police state" when a minor application ends with a "state secret". If Chee was indeed a threat to the State, they would have hauled him up to Whitely by now. Which has not been the case.[/QUOTE]

 

[one2unite]

That is indeed an excellent argument by CSJ if that is indeed the point he was seeking.

If so, then the judge has decided inappropriately.

To be fair, according to the newspaper report, the judge did asked him on the line of reasoning. Dr Chee's answer was not so succint. Or it may, but not so reported.

Chee and the other defendants are Singaporeans firmly rooted here. They maintain from the start that it was through discrimination and abuse of the police and the judiciary, that they are facing this trial.

Chee did tell the judge that he wanted to hear from the witness why it took him nearly a month to respond to his application. In the application, it is clearly stated that it would take only seven days to know the outcome.

The 154th propaganda mouthpiece is not "reporting" but resorting to selectivity, omission and distortion.

 

[Leongsam]

The Singapore Police Force appears to have lost complete autonomy of their role,

In order to "lose" something, you must have it to begin with.

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

If one makes a police report, the min they get ur NRIC no, your residence comes up. :_)) Its the equivalent of a drivers license in the US.

Yes, its a non-issue.

A PAP Community cycling event is not a political event and hence safe, but an opposition cycling is and hence not safe. The administrative logic leaps are mind boggling indeed and all because the old man has defined a strict need to suppress all potentially political or quasi political events accept those organized by the PAP and the old folks home.

Dr Chee will go to jail again to prove a point which we all know, the PAP is unfair, the PAP uses the law to its advantage with mind boggling leaps of logic etc etc etc.

Locke

Thats is why Singaporeans have very little respect for the PAP. It also explains why PAP members living in your neighbourhood are shy and secretive about their membership. Bunch of swines.

Till today they cannot reasonably explain their position as you correctly pointed their "administrative logic leaps" is excruciatingly mind boggling.

They might need Balji's help in confusing the common man.

If by fluke, there is a revolution, I will insist that all PAP members cycle non-stop at East Coast for 30 days and 30 nights. Then of course must stand trial for abuse of position.

 

[scroobal]

In order to "lose" something, you must have it to begin with.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

Strange as it may seem , I have had the dubious pleasure of beating the fact out of a PAP member that she was a PAP member based on her position as an RC Zone secretary only after I gave her a please do not bull shit me I am a card carrying opposition member brief. Anyway PAP members are so secretive of their membership that I wonder are they joining a political party proudly or some secret society the name of which is not meant to be muttered accept in the quiet of the night.

Dr Chee's choice of irrelevant points in order to paint a greater picture of gov conspiracy and incompetence is a time honored SDP tradition from U Yap's questioning of light bulbs to Dr Chee's questioning of his marked dinner plates when he was jailed ( hints of gov poisoning on the SDP's part)

That aside his audience has never been local singaporeans. His actions have always been for the foreign press , ngo's and foreign governments. Witness his lawyer's little soiree to London and the Law Society. I have always had my doubts about the utility of international pressure and how much it actually hurts the PAP where it hurts versus that itch on the ass in the middle of the night.

Yes they are unfair, and yes even the taxi driver uncle can see their unfairness, but heck unfairness and suffering for that unfairness has never been enough to get one elected and to give the old man a real pain in the ass.



Cheers


Locke

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

Strange as it may seem , I have had the dubious pleasure of beating the fact out of a PAP member that she was a PAP member based on her position as an RC Zone secretary only after I gave her a please do not bull shit me I am a card carrying opposition member brief. Anyway PAP members are so secretive of their membership that I wonder are they joining a political party proudly or some secret society the name of which is not meant to be muttered accept in the quiet of the night.

Its phenomenon that I noticed from the very start. Its certainly not like the freemasons but you can sense that it borders around a sense of of shame or they know that there is perception of resentment. I do recall either the spouse or a family member will hint that the chap is a pap member in order to pre-empt raising anything that becomes uncomfortable. I know that cadres are told to remain quiet even amongst the general membership.

Dr Chee's choice of irrelevant points in order to paint a greater picture of gov conspiracy and incompetence is a time honored SDP tradition from U Yap's questioning of light bulbs to Dr Chee's questioning of his marked dinner plates when he was jailed ( hints of gov poisoning on the SDP's part)

That aside his audience has never been local singaporeans. His actions have always been for the foreign press , ngo's and foreign governments. Witness his lawyer's little soiree to London and the Law Society. I have always had my doubts about the utility of international pressure and how much it actually hurts the PAP where it hurts versus that itch on the ass in the middle of the night.

Yes they are unfair, and yes even the taxi driver uncle can see their unfairness, but heck unfairness and suffering for that unfairness has never been enough to get one elected and to give the old man a real pain in the ass.
Cheers
Locke

I do agree that he addresses the foreign / NGO gallery but in this instance I think a court has put itself in a difficult position.

As to international pressure it has to come from govt and respected figures. In this case they are missing.

 

[cleareyes]

Just curious. In a normal court of law, can a witness refuse to reply based on confidentiality?

If the person had signed the Official Secrets Act slip, he or she cannot reply on any question which had been deem confidental by his department. he can only answer them or allow others to know of the information if that set of information had been declassified.

had the officer actually reply on the question, he would then be in trouble for breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Chee, as an ASP(NS) knows that, but he is just playing to the gallery and fooling those who r ignorant of the Official Secrets Act and at the same time, trying to get a IO in trouble.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Aiyah, I know of senior PAP cadres who bitch non stop about LKY and the cabinet in private, never fails to amuse me, that and the fact that all these PAP cadres still address themselves as COMRADE, COMRADES who live in $20m bungalows (amongst their numerous other multi-million $$ properties), drive $500k plus cars (amongst their numerous other luxury cars), children who also drive $500kplus cars, and select few who draw multi million dollar salaries courtesy of the public

Its phenomenon that I noticed from the very start. .

Firstly, I wonder why the Prosecution called the SI with oversight of the permit applications as a witness? What was the relevance?

Secondly, since he was called to the stand and asked apparent sticky and inconvenient questions by Dr Chee, regardless of the issue of relevancy, you would have thought that since the 'door was open' it was incumbent in the interests of justice, equity and fair play that the Judge himself probe into this issue of permit approval.

Reminds me of the hilarious episode when JBJ and Dr Chee went to the Registry of Societies to register the Open Centre. Sad and pathetic to see the apparent politicisation of the civil service.

I do agree that he addresses the foreign / NGO gallery but in this instance I think a court has put itself in a difficult position.

.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps, but he also appears to be demonstrating, not for the first time I should add, that the civil service has been politicised by the PAP government.

Chee, as an ASP(NS) knows that, but he is just playing to the gallery and fooling those who r ignorant of the Official Secrets Act and at the same time, trying to get a IO in trouble.

 

[KKC007]

Yes, but it is the duty of the judge to ensure a fair hearing. It makes no different if a witness is called by the prosecution or the defence, that witness is compelled by law to testify truthfully unless the judge rules that the line of questioning is irrelevant to the case.

I am sure Chee's point is that he would not be facing the court if his application was considered in a fair and just manner.

I think the magistrate screwed himself up. The magistrate could have held his testimony in camera with the courts cleared if it was sensitive to the state but relevant to the case.

Actually, I was referring to your analogy of the surgeon manning the reception desk. It was Chee who subpoened the witness. The witness was not sent by the police to attend the court. No?

Edit: Oops. The witness was cross-examined by Chee. So he is a prosecution witness. So, your analogy stands.

 

[KKC007]

If the person had signed the Official Secrets Act slip, he or she cannot reply on any question which had been deem confidental by his department. he can only answer them or allow others to know of the information if that set of information had been declassified.

had the officer actually reply on the question, he would then be in trouble for breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Chee, as an ASP(NS) knows that, but he is just playing to the gallery and fooling those who r ignorant of the Official Secrets Act and at the same time, trying to get a IO in trouble.

Thank you.