Chitchat Phey Yew Kok Makes a Fool of PAP

Phey Yew Kok got the best deal. He was PAP MP and Secretary General of NTUC. He became a fugitive in the 1970s but spent 30 of his best years in complete freedom in Thailand with thai chio bus when he was strong and virile. Now that he is 80+, sick and limp, he surrendered himself and will spend his twilight years getting free food and lodging and free medical care at Changi Hilton and being visited by family members regularly, all these on tax payers money. He is much better off than our ah gongs who are staying in old folks home in JB. These ah gongs got to pay for their board and lodging and medical fees.

Phey is cunning and even to his last days made a fool of PAP and SG's justice system

Cannot be lah. Pap want him back so he cannot write books to suan old fart and pap.

tanwahtiu said:

Cannot be lah. Pap want him back so he cannot write books to suan old fart and pap.

Click to expand...

are you saying that he is not getting free corad and lodging and medical now? are you saying he didnt enjoy his stay in thailand from 1970s until he surrendered?

tanwahtiu said:

Cannot be lah. Pap want him back so he cannot write books to suan old fart and pap.

Click to expand...

Many of our ah gongs toiled throughout their lives to bring up their children. They made huge sacrifices and lived a life of frugality. But now some of them are in JB old folks homes and have to pay for their food,lodging and medical care

Phey lives a life of relative luxury.

In fact our ah gongs shd go commit some petty thefts and get our justice system to send them to Changi Hilton and get free medical treatments

ckmpd said:

Many of our ah gongs toiled throughout their lives to bring up their children. They made huge sacrifices and lived a life of frugality. But now some of them are in JB old folks homes and have to pay for their food,lodging and medical care

Phey lives a life of relative luxury.

In fact our ah gongs shd go commit some petty thefts and get our justice system to send them to Changi Hilton and get free medical treatments

Click to expand...

strange that his rich children din look after him in Thailand///////////

Leckmichamarsch said:

strange that his rich children din look after him in Thailand///////////

Click to expand...

I think they did. that's why he stayed and enjoyed there for more than 30yrs.

But now he is enjoying himself at the expense of Singaporean tax payers

Even in their twilight/retirement years PAP members also always never forget to maximize their personal benefits from taxpayers' money before they kick the bucket.It's in their DNA to be kleptocratic,just like a money addict,always craving for more and more money everyday,really no cure for it.

batman1 said:

Even in their twilight/retirement years PAP members also always never forget to maximize their personal benefits from taxpayers' money before they kick the bucket.It's in their DNA to be kleptocratic,just like a money addict,always craving for more and more money everyday,really no cure for it.

Click to expand...

Yes. That shows the insecurity of the man. Never having the sense of enough. Insecurity and poverty mindset

Phew thought he was going to succeed Devan Nair in NTUC. When Lim Chee Onn was named, he mounted a rear guard action. They immediately asked to open the books. They did that with Glenn Knight, JBJ, Francis Seow and now Aljunied GRC. This is PAP's trademark style. Phey of course was corrupt and rotten to the core. Imagine how many corrupt and rotten PAP people who have gotten away because they toed the line.

If Phey had for argument sake bought Nassim Jade, he would have been crucified.

scroobal said:

If Phey had for argument sake bought Nassim Jade, he would have been crucified.

Click to expand...

Your mention of Nassim Jade made me revisit this: http://www.tangtalk.com/index-eng.htm

Sir Charles Anthony St John Gray before he himself became and judge and subsequently got knighted...poor chap did not have much for with defending JBJ either...

Straits Times

SEP 25 1997

Judgment reserved in Tang's appeals
By Koh Buck Song

THE three-judge Court of Appeal yesterday reserved judgment in the 14 appeals by Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong after a 2-1/2-day hearing.

Its verdict on whether to uphold the High Court ruling that Mr Tang was guilty of defamation and should pay $8.075 million in damages will be made later.

Closing his case yesterday, Queen's Counsel Charles Gray, representing Mr Tang, said the lawyers for the 11 People's Action Party leaders had failed to "grasp the nettle" of his case.

The damages Mr Tang has to pay were "exorbitant, disproportionate, unjust, grotesque" and "wholly unrealistic", the QC said, giving a breakdown of the amounts awarded in each of the 13 suits. He acknowledged that, in Singapore, previous cases were often used as a yardstick to decide the quantum of damages for defamation.

But he urged the court to note the recent "sea change" in how defamation awards were viewed abroad, to bring them more in line with what plaintiffs got in cases of crippling physical injury.

He also asked Justices M. Karthigesu, L. P. Thean and G. P. Selvam to take into account duplication in the suits against Mr Tang, the prevailing cost of living, the level of earnings of an average person, and the "chilling effect" of huge awards to politicians in inhibiting freedom of expression here.

Mr Gray also argued that:

It did not matter that there was no allegation of actual impropriety over the apartment purchases by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as even Finance Minister Richard Hu had told Parliament that there was a public perception of impropriety.

There was no need for separate notices of appeal, since Justice Goh Joon Seng's decision to strike out Mr Tang's appeal on the grounds that he had failed to comply with court rulings would "disappear" if it was found that Justice Lai Kew Chai, who made the earlier ruling, should instead have disqualified himself from the case for apparent bias.

The PAP lawyers gave no explanation why they resisted putting the 13 suits together in this "classic case for consolidation" which would have saved court time and costs.

Mr Gray insisted that he stood uncontradicted that there was no precedent for a worldwide Mareva injunction before judgment in a defamation case, despite PAP lawyers citing an example of a previous case in which a Mareva was granted.

It was wrong of Justice Chao Hick Tin to award extra damages against Mr Tang for attacking the judiciary, as damages in defamation cases were meant to compensate and not punish.

It was "legal nonsense" to imply that Mr Gray had further aggravated the damages by his conduct in this appeal, since damages can be aggravated before and up to a trial, but not afterwards.

Justice Chao was "sadly left in the dark" that SM Lee and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had obtained and released Mr Tang's two police reports, since the PAP lawyers gave no good reason why this fact was concealed until last month.

SC Wong Meng Meng's proposition, that it was immaterial that the SM and PM released the reports since Mr Tang must have known the reports would be publicised eventually, was "remarkable and wrong-headed", since one cannot be held liable for what a third party does.

Mr Tang had good reason not to return here to confront the case against him, as he was harassed, placed in the "straitjacket" of the $11.2 million Mareva injunction, and deprived of legal representation until April.

There was no convincing evidence of Mr Tang's Chinese chauvinism, and "not a shred" to show he was anti-Malay or anti-Islam, he said, brushing aside the evidence cited by PAP lawyers as "nothing more than a bunch of beans".

To think Mr Tang's speech at a 1994 dinner about religious harmony could lead to the sort of ethnic division seen in Rwanda or Bosnia was "really the height of absurdity", the QC said, urging the court to reject the ruling that Mr Tang had defamed the PAP leaders and to reduce the damages awarded.



Tang ordered to pay bulk of costs in appeal hearings

Straits Times. Dec 4,1997

BY Walter Fernandez
THE three-judge court of appeal yesterday ordered defeated Worker's Party member Tang Liang Hong to pay the bulk of the legal costs incurred by the People's Action Party leaders in a string of appeal hearings which arose during their long-drawn legal battle.

In a 17-page judgment, Justices M. Karthigesu, L. P. Thean and G. P. Selvam ordered Mr Tang, who is currently based in Melbourne, to bear the cost of three sets of appeals which he initiated against various court rulings and decisions. These were his appeals: To have Justice Lai Kew Chai dismissed from presiding over the defamation suits on the grounds that the judge was biased; Against Justice Lai's decision to strike out his defence; Against Justice Goh Joon Seng's subsequent decision to also strike out his defence because he ignored the receivership order.

Adding these latest legal costs to those already incurred during the lengthy defamation action which he lost, Mr Tang now has to pay at least a six-figure sum in costs, legal sources said.

This is on top of the $3.63 million in damages he was ordered to pay the PAP leaders for his defamatory remarks.

The lawyer, who fled Singapore soon after the January general election, has, however, maintained that he will not pay the 11 PAP leaders a single cent, and instead said he plans to start "fresh action" to strike out the judgments entered against him.

In the case of Mr Tang's 12 appeals against Justice Goh's decision to strike out his defence, the Appeal Court said that to "avoid double or multiple awards of costs" to the PAP leaders, each of them was only entitled to one set of costs.

This means that even though Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is the respondent named in three of Mr Tang's appeals, the appeal court judges ordered that, to be fair, Mr Goh should only be allowed to claim one set of legal costs from Mr Tang.

In its judgment, the court of appeal also ordered the PAP leaders to pay Mr Tang's legal costs in two appeals -- the appeal against the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) suit and the appeal against the overall quantum of damages awarded to the PAP leaders.

In the HPL defamation suit, Mr Tang succeeded in showing that senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong were not entitled to any damages from him as the compensation they had recovered from his co-defendants in the case was "more than adequate".

The appeal court ordered the two PAP leaders to pay the costs of the appeal on the quantum of damages in this case.

Similarly, Mr Tang was also successful in his 12 appeals against the more than $7 million in damages awarded to the PAP leaders.

The appeal court cut the damages to $3.63 million and so awarded Mr Tang 70 per cent of the legal costs incurred.

The three appeal court judges said they decided on the figure of 70 per cent after considering Mr Tang's conduct and because several of his arguments had delayed the proceedings significantly.

The burden of these costs will be shared among the 11 PAP leaders, with each paying between 10 and 25 per cent. The legal costs for the three-day appeal hearing are expected to total about $50,000.

Published in the Straits Times. December 4, 1997

ckmpd said:

Many of our ah gongs toiled throughout their lives to bring up their children. They made huge sacrifices and lived a life of frugality. But now some of them are in JB old folks homes and have to pay for their food,lodging and medical care

Phey lives a life of relative luxury.

In fact our ah gongs shd go commit some petty thefts and get our justice system to send them to Changi Hilton and get free medical treatments

Click to expand...

Ask your ah gong go and touch ah ma nei nei pok, he will get free Changi Hilton and free medical treatment too... Is not too late to do it now for your ah gong if he wish...

Yingge said:

Ask your ah gong go and touch ah ma nei nei pok, he will get free Changi Hilton and free medical treatment too... Is not too late to do it now for your ah gong if he wish...

Click to expand...

good advice, better than to stay in Changi Hilton than JB old folks home or sell tissue paper

When Old Man went after Tang the moment the polls closed, he ordered the IRAS to do a thorough tax review, the same thing he did with Francis Seow. A clear abuse of authority and the no one in cabinet felt that it was morally wrong.

The allegations of chinese chauvinism were immediately put to rest when Tang after crossing the causeway went to stay with a good friend, a Malay chap and his family. The malay gentleman spoke to the press about their long friendship. Photos also emerged of Tang in full Indian classical dance regalia and that he was trained in Indian classical. I thought it was hilarious that these allegations were absolutely false and how many in non Malays in cabinet had a close friend who is a Malay.

The saddest thing was arresting his wife when she did nothing including litter. The whole country watched and no one said anything.

Of course Old Man's speech in Parliament about Nassim Jade and Dhanabalan character reference was another comedy. As he spelt out his doctrine - hawkers put 2 eggs in his kway teow because of who he is. The son quietly sat and said nothing when he and his wife got double the discount from HPL claiming to the press that he was not aware of the discount. And yesterday this prick gave a sermon on corruption. CPIB have government servants in prison for accepting far far less. They had no doctrine to rely on and they could not plead ignorance.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

There was no convincing evidence of Mr Tang's Chinese chauvinism, and "not a shred" to show he was anti-Malay or anti-Islam, he said, brushing aside the evidence cited by PAP lawyers as "nothing more than a bunch of beans".

To think Mr Tang's speech at a 1994 dinner about religious harmony could lead to the sort of ethnic division seen in Rwanda or Bosnia was "really the height of absurdity", the QC said, urging the court to reject the ruling that Mr Tang had defamed the PAP leaders and to reduce the damages awarded.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

When Old Man went after Tang the moment the polls closed, he ordered the IRAS to do a thorough tax review, the same thing he did with Francis Seow. A clear abuse of authority and the no one in cabinet felt that it was morally wrong.

The allegations of chinese chauvinism were immediately put to rest when Tang after crossing the causeway went to stay with a good friend, a Malay chap and his family. The malay gentleman spoke to the press about their long friendship. Photos also emerged of Tang in full Indian classical dance regalia and that he was trained in Indian classical. I thought it was hilarious that these allegations were absolutely false and how many in non Malays in cabinet had a close friend who is a Malay.

The saddest thing was arresting his wife when she did nothing including litter. The whole country watched and no one said anything.

Of course Old Man's speech in Parliament about Nassim Jade and Dhanabalan character reference was another comedy. As he spelt out his doctrine - hawkers put 2 eggs in his kway teow because of who he is. The son quietly sat and said nothing when he and his wife got double the discount from HPL claiming to the press that he was not aware of the discount. And yesterday this prick gave a sermon on corruption. CPIB have government servants in prison for accepting far far less. They had no doctrine to rely on and they could not plead ignorance.

Click to expand...

The shame of a country. PAP ministers should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank God for social media. PAP cant hide from now onwards. Social media is doing what the SG Press failed to do

This is one case, where a book should be published not only on what had taken place, the abuse of the authority and the court proceedings. and how the whole legal system was compromised for one family.

I also recall that JBJ also faced multiple law suits from PAP Indian MPs and some Indian literary society (can't recall the actual party). When it was time to go for bankruptcy to kill off the man politically, there was a bitter dispute as no Indian wanted the stigma of being the one who bankrupted JBJ and face a backlash from the Indian committee. So they pushed it to a blurfuck Indian female school teacher and the deed was done.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

Your mention of Nassim Jade made me revisit this: http://www.tangtalk.com/index-eng.htm

Sir Charles Anthony St John Gray before he himself became and judge and subsequently got knighted...poor chap did not have much for with defending JBJ either...

Straits Times

SEP 25 1997

Judgment reserved in Tang's appeals
By Koh Buck Song

THE three-judge Court of Appeal yesterday reserved judgment in the 14 appeals by Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong after a 2-1/2-day hearing.

Its verdict on whether to uphold the High Court ruling that Mr Tang was guilty of defamation and should pay $8.075 million in damages will be made later.

Closing his case yesterday, Queen's Counsel Charles Gray, representing Mr Tang, said the lawyers for the 11 People's Action Party leaders had failed to "grasp the nettle" of his case.

The damages Mr Tang has to pay were "exorbitant, disproportionate, unjust, grotesque" and "wholly unrealistic", the QC said, giving a breakdown of the amounts awarded in each of the 13 suits. He acknowledged that, in Singapore, previous cases were often used as a yardstick to decide the quantum of damages for defamation.

But he urged the court to note the recent "sea change" in how defamation awards were viewed abroad, to bring them more in line with what plaintiffs got in cases of crippling physical injury.

He also asked Justices M. Karthigesu, L. P. Thean and G. P. Selvam to take into account duplication in the suits against Mr Tang, the prevailing cost of living, the level of earnings of an average person, and the "chilling effect" of huge awards to politicians in inhibiting freedom of expression here.

Mr Gray also argued that:

It did not matter that there was no allegation of actual impropriety over the apartment purchases by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as even Finance Minister Richard Hu had told Parliament that there was a public perception of impropriety.

There was no need for separate notices of appeal, since Justice Goh Joon Seng's decision to strike out Mr Tang's appeal on the grounds that he had failed to comply with court rulings would "disappear" if it was found that Justice Lai Kew Chai, who made the earlier ruling, should instead have disqualified himself from the case for apparent bias.

The PAP lawyers gave no explanation why they resisted putting the 13 suits together in this "classic case for consolidation" which would have saved court time and costs.

Mr Gray insisted that he stood uncontradicted that there was no precedent for a worldwide Mareva injunction before judgment in a defamation case, despite PAP lawyers citing an example of a previous case in which a Mareva was granted.

It was wrong of Justice Chao Hick Tin to award extra damages against Mr Tang for attacking the judiciary, as damages in defamation cases were meant to compensate and not punish.

It was "legal nonsense" to imply that Mr Gray had further aggravated the damages by his conduct in this appeal, since damages can be aggravated before and up to a trial, but not afterwards.

Justice Chao was "sadly left in the dark" that SM Lee and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had obtained and released Mr Tang's two police reports, since the PAP lawyers gave no good reason why this fact was concealed until last month.

SC Wong Meng Meng's proposition, that it was immaterial that the SM and PM released the reports since Mr Tang must have known the reports would be publicised eventually, was "remarkable and wrong-headed", since one cannot be held liable for what a third party does.

Mr Tang had good reason not to return here to confront the case against him, as he was harassed, placed in the "straitjacket" of the $11.2 million Mareva injunction, and deprived of legal representation until April.

There was no convincing evidence of Mr Tang's Chinese chauvinism, and "not a shred" to show he was anti-Malay or anti-Islam, he said, brushing aside the evidence cited by PAP lawyers as "nothing more than a bunch of beans".

To think Mr Tang's speech at a 1994 dinner about religious harmony could lead to the sort of ethnic division seen in Rwanda or Bosnia was "really the height of absurdity", the QC said, urging the court to reject the ruling that Mr Tang had defamed the PAP leaders and to reduce the damages awarded.



Tang ordered to pay bulk of costs in appeal hearings

Straits Times. Dec 4,1997

BY Walter Fernandez
THE three-judge court of appeal yesterday ordered defeated Worker's Party member Tang Liang Hong to pay the bulk of the legal costs incurred by the People's Action Party leaders in a string of appeal hearings which arose during their long-drawn legal battle.

In a 17-page judgment, Justices M. Karthigesu, L. P. Thean and G. P. Selvam ordered Mr Tang, who is currently based in Melbourne, to bear the cost of three sets of appeals which he initiated against various court rulings and decisions. These were his appeals: To have Justice Lai Kew Chai dismissed from presiding over the defamation suits on the grounds that the judge was biased; Against Justice Lai's decision to strike out his defence; Against Justice Goh Joon Seng's subsequent decision to also strike out his defence because he ignored the receivership order.

Adding these latest legal costs to those already incurred during the lengthy defamation action which he lost, Mr Tang now has to pay at least a six-figure sum in costs, legal sources said.

This is on top of the $3.63 million in damages he was ordered to pay the PAP leaders for his defamatory remarks.

The lawyer, who fled Singapore soon after the January general election, has, however, maintained that he will not pay the 11 PAP leaders a single cent, and instead said he plans to start "fresh action" to strike out the judgments entered against him.

In the case of Mr Tang's 12 appeals against Justice Goh's decision to strike out his defence, the Appeal Court said that to "avoid double or multiple awards of costs" to the PAP leaders, each of them was only entitled to one set of costs.

This means that even though Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is the respondent named in three of Mr Tang's appeals, the appeal court judges ordered that, to be fair, Mr Goh should only be allowed to claim one set of legal costs from Mr Tang.

In its judgment, the court of appeal also ordered the PAP leaders to pay Mr Tang's legal costs in two appeals -- the appeal against the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) suit and the appeal against the overall quantum of damages awarded to the PAP leaders.

In the HPL defamation suit, Mr Tang succeeded in showing that senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong were not entitled to any damages from him as the compensation they had recovered from his co-defendants in the case was "more than adequate".

The appeal court ordered the two PAP leaders to pay the costs of the appeal on the quantum of damages in this case.

Similarly, Mr Tang was also successful in his 12 appeals against the more than $7 million in damages awarded to the PAP leaders.

The appeal court cut the damages to $3.63 million and so awarded Mr Tang 70 per cent of the legal costs incurred.

The three appeal court judges said they decided on the figure of 70 per cent after considering Mr Tang's conduct and because several of his arguments had delayed the proceedings significantly.

The burden of these costs will be shared among the 11 PAP leaders, with each paying between 10 and 25 per cent. The legal costs for the three-day appeal hearing are expected to total about $50,000.

Published in the Straits Times. December 4, 1997

Click to expand...