-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted.
- Thread starter Lee Hsien Tau
- Start date
24 hours to cool off good or not good????
Usually, people donch google 'Chiam See Tong' unless he is particularly mentioned in the State Times. That despite
http://chiam-see-tong.blogspot.com/
being lumber 2 in Google and Yahoo search listings.
But during erection, they do it without particular mention in the State Times anyway because it is the topic of the day!
So any extra time given by the garhmen MIW for people to reflect and research their choice of parliamentary representative is beneficial for visitation to the above mentioned website?
Not necessarily because the website is foreign based, just like SBF.
Garhmen controlls all the ISPs, you know. Just like the job sector, housing, health care, in fact everything. Privately owned ISPs also need license.
All they need to do is create some bottlenecks, no need to shut down one.:(
PM Lee proposes extra day of non—campaigning before Polling Day
Channel NewsAsia - Tuesday, December 1
PORT OF SPAIN: The Singapore government is proposing an extra day of non—campaigning as a cooling—off period just before Polling Day, ahead of the General Election due in 2012.
The extra day of non—campaigning will also apply to a presidential election.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the announcement to the Singapore media after wrapping up his attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago.
Under current election rules, political parties are not allowed to campaign on Polling Day itself.
Except for party political broadcasts and news reports, there are to be no more mass rallies, door—to—door visits and even display of party symbols.
Mr Lee said the cabinet had been considering an additional cooling—off day over the past several elections.
He said this would give voters time to reflect rationally on issues, after the emotional high of election campaigning.
Mr Lee said: "I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door—to—door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it — tomorrow we vote."
He added that having a cooling—off period will also lessen the risk of public disorder.
"Previously, once in a while, we have had pushing and shoving at election rallies as the crowd gets worked up and doesn’t disperse, but the main thing is to have time for people to think over the issues and to vote in a calm state of mind," he said.
Mr Lee was asked how this additional 24—hour cooling—off period would apply to the online world of networking and video—sharing sites.
"On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight—forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling—off day," he said.
Countries that have imposed a similar period of campaign silence include Australia and Indonesia.
Australia has a three—day black—out of election advertising and Indonesia has a three—day cooling—off before Legislative Elections and a two—day cooling—off before the Presidential election.
In Singapore, this means that the minimum period between Nomination and Polling Day will be extended from 9 to 10 days to keep the same number of minimum campaigning days.
This comes on the back of new election rules proposed earlier this year to bring more diverse views to Parliament.
These include having more single—seat wards and smaller Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), as well as allowing for more non—elected seats.
Mr Lee had said then that the proposed changes are aimed at a more balanced system and to bring diverse views in Parliament to better reflect the aspirations of Singaporeans.
On whether the changes mean the General Election is near?
Mr Lee remained tight—lipped. "Maybe ... no I don’t have a date for you — it could be, it could not be," he said.
The Prime Minister did not give a date but he did say it is getting closer. One thing’s for sure, the General Election is unlikely to be in the first quarter of next year. That’s because the new election rule will have to be read in Parliament before the Budget in February or March next year, and the Constitution changed after the Budget. — CNA/de
Usually, people donch google 'Chiam See Tong' unless he is particularly mentioned in the State Times. That despite
http://chiam-see-tong.blogspot.com/
being lumber 2 in Google and Yahoo search listings.
But during erection, they do it without particular mention in the State Times anyway because it is the topic of the day!
So any extra time given by the garhmen MIW for people to reflect and research their choice of parliamentary representative is beneficial for visitation to the above mentioned website?
Not necessarily because the website is foreign based, just like SBF.
Garhmen controlls all the ISPs, you know. Just like the job sector, housing, health care, in fact everything. Privately owned ISPs also need license.
All they need to do is create some bottlenecks, no need to shut down one.:(
PM Lee proposes extra day of non—campaigning before Polling Day
Channel NewsAsia - Tuesday, December 1
PORT OF SPAIN: The Singapore government is proposing an extra day of non—campaigning as a cooling—off period just before Polling Day, ahead of the General Election due in 2012.
The extra day of non—campaigning will also apply to a presidential election.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the announcement to the Singapore media after wrapping up his attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago.
Under current election rules, political parties are not allowed to campaign on Polling Day itself.
Except for party political broadcasts and news reports, there are to be no more mass rallies, door—to—door visits and even display of party symbols.
Mr Lee said the cabinet had been considering an additional cooling—off day over the past several elections.
He said this would give voters time to reflect rationally on issues, after the emotional high of election campaigning.
Mr Lee said: "I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door—to—door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it — tomorrow we vote."
He added that having a cooling—off period will also lessen the risk of public disorder.
"Previously, once in a while, we have had pushing and shoving at election rallies as the crowd gets worked up and doesn’t disperse, but the main thing is to have time for people to think over the issues and to vote in a calm state of mind," he said.
Mr Lee was asked how this additional 24—hour cooling—off period would apply to the online world of networking and video—sharing sites.
"On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight—forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling—off day," he said.
Countries that have imposed a similar period of campaign silence include Australia and Indonesia.
Australia has a three—day black—out of election advertising and Indonesia has a three—day cooling—off before Legislative Elections and a two—day cooling—off before the Presidential election.
In Singapore, this means that the minimum period between Nomination and Polling Day will be extended from 9 to 10 days to keep the same number of minimum campaigning days.
This comes on the back of new election rules proposed earlier this year to bring more diverse views to Parliament.
These include having more single—seat wards and smaller Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), as well as allowing for more non—elected seats.
Mr Lee had said then that the proposed changes are aimed at a more balanced system and to bring diverse views in Parliament to better reflect the aspirations of Singaporeans.
On whether the changes mean the General Election is near?
Mr Lee remained tight—lipped. "Maybe ... no I don’t have a date for you — it could be, it could not be," he said.
The Prime Minister did not give a date but he did say it is getting closer. One thing’s for sure, the General Election is unlikely to be in the first quarter of next year. That’s because the new election rule will have to be read in Parliament before the Budget in February or March next year, and the Constitution changed after the Budget. — CNA/de
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Dec 8, 2009
25th year for nothing
By Kor Kian Beng, Political Correspondent
The 74-year-old Mr Chiam, who was first elected on Dec 22, 1984, will likely speak at the event. -- ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
OPPOSITION veteran Chiam See Tong, who is also Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir, will be marking his 25th year as an MP at a dinner bash this Saturday.
Around 1,000 people, including leaders of several opposition parties, are expected to attend the event. The dinner will be held at an open field near Block 119 along Potong Pasir Avenue 1.
The 74-year-old Mr Chiam, who was first elected on Dec 22, 1984, will likely speak at the event.
Mr Desmond Lim Bak Chuan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) which Mr Chiam chairs, said 90 per cent of the guests will be Potong Pasir residents. The dinner costs $30 per person.
Said Mr Lim: 'It shows residents want to be involved in a tribute to Mr Chiam, for his 25 years of service to Potong Pasir.'
Mr Chiam, a teacher-turned-lawyer, entered politics in 1976 when he contested as an independent in Cairnhill. He lost to Mr Lim Kim San, the Communications and National Development Minister at that time.
Dec 8, 2009
25th year for nothing
By Kor Kian Beng, Political Correspondent
The 74-year-old Mr Chiam, who was first elected on Dec 22, 1984, will likely speak at the event. -- ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
OPPOSITION veteran Chiam See Tong, who is also Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir, will be marking his 25th year as an MP at a dinner bash this Saturday.
Around 1,000 people, including leaders of several opposition parties, are expected to attend the event. The dinner will be held at an open field near Block 119 along Potong Pasir Avenue 1.
The 74-year-old Mr Chiam, who was first elected on Dec 22, 1984, will likely speak at the event.
Mr Desmond Lim Bak Chuan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) which Mr Chiam chairs, said 90 per cent of the guests will be Potong Pasir residents. The dinner costs $30 per person.
Said Mr Lim: 'It shows residents want to be involved in a tribute to Mr Chiam, for his 25 years of service to Potong Pasir.'
Mr Chiam, a teacher-turned-lawyer, entered politics in 1976 when he contested as an independent in Cairnhill. He lost to Mr Lim Kim San, the Communications and National Development Minister at that time.
Steven Chong, sorry to inform you, your days are numbered.
In this place, the famiLEE comes first, the judges also dance a deadly salsa with the prosecution.
Please reflect on what you've just said, and apologise to the famiLEE.
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Dec 9, 2009
Judges must not pre-judge
Mini-mart operator's appeal prompts Judicial Commissioner's remark
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Mr Sambasivam Kunju was told by the judge during a trial in March that 'it's your grave you are digging' if he continued to pursue the case. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM
Remarks made
THE remarks by the district judge to Mr Sambasivam Kunju went 'beyond mere discourtesy', said Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong. According to court documents, the district judge said:
# 'Right now, my sole impression of your integrity is zero. You will suffer the consequences when I make the judgment.'
# 'It's like you win the battle but lose the war. If that happens, I'll award $1 judgment. I'm sure anybody here will be happy to take $1 from his pocket and pay you.'
# 'Do you want to rethink your strategy now?'
# 'Even if you win, you suffered a loss; does it make sense to go on if you are not getting anything?'
# 'Nim Minimart has suffered a loss, even if you win this case, you get zero.'
SUJIN THOMAS
JUDGES must not pressure parties in a case to settle their dispute quickly, nor should they make up their minds about the case before hearing all the arguments.
This principle was underlined in a case Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong heard within a week of being appointed to the bench in October.
He made the remarks after hearing the appeal of a mini-mart operator who claimed that an earlier trial judge had been biased against him.
Mr Sambasivam Kunju had taken the management committee of Nim Garden to court for alleged breach of contract when it changed the terms of his mini-mart lease on the Yio Chu Kang condominium premises.
He referred to comments the district judge had made during his three-day trial in March as evidence that the judge had decided on the outcome beforehand.
Among other things, the judge had told him that he did not care who was in the right or wrong, and that even if Mr Sambasivam won, he would be awarded just $1.
In this place, the famiLEE comes first, the judges also dance a deadly salsa with the prosecution.
Please reflect on what you've just said, and apologise to the famiLEE.
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Dec 9, 2009
Judges must not pre-judge
Mini-mart operator's appeal prompts Judicial Commissioner's remark
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Mr Sambasivam Kunju was told by the judge during a trial in March that 'it's your grave you are digging' if he continued to pursue the case. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM
Remarks made
THE remarks by the district judge to Mr Sambasivam Kunju went 'beyond mere discourtesy', said Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong. According to court documents, the district judge said:
# 'Right now, my sole impression of your integrity is zero. You will suffer the consequences when I make the judgment.'
# 'It's like you win the battle but lose the war. If that happens, I'll award $1 judgment. I'm sure anybody here will be happy to take $1 from his pocket and pay you.'
# 'Do you want to rethink your strategy now?'
# 'Even if you win, you suffered a loss; does it make sense to go on if you are not getting anything?'
# 'Nim Minimart has suffered a loss, even if you win this case, you get zero.'
SUJIN THOMAS
JUDGES must not pressure parties in a case to settle their dispute quickly, nor should they make up their minds about the case before hearing all the arguments.
This principle was underlined in a case Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong heard within a week of being appointed to the bench in October.
He made the remarks after hearing the appeal of a mini-mart operator who claimed that an earlier trial judge had been biased against him.
Mr Sambasivam Kunju had taken the management committee of Nim Garden to court for alleged breach of contract when it changed the terms of his mini-mart lease on the Yio Chu Kang condominium premises.
He referred to comments the district judge had made during his three-day trial in March as evidence that the judge had decided on the outcome beforehand.
Among other things, the judge had told him that he did not care who was in the right or wrong, and that even if Mr Sambasivam won, he would be awarded just $1.
Latest comments
Yes impartiality is essential but if you have big time lawyers doing your case, you are at a better stage that the one with a lawyer who is not well known. That's society.
Posted by: sakuratoratora at Wed Dec 09 17:02:53 SGT 2009
How many more cases went unreported, and brushed aside as "wasting everyone's time"...I think the answer is clear. When one has reached the highest position in the land, it is easy to call people names and do things the quick and dirty way (unfair).
Posted by: lplp at Wed Dec 09 16:56:15 SGT 2009
Let's hope we have more judges with the caliber and integrity/impartialness of Steven Chong. More importantly, he presents a humble and compassionate side.
Posted by: coconut3088 at Wed Dec 09 10:30:07 SGT 2009
This is the fundamental flaw of having one person presiding and deciding as judge. Of course one can appeal to a higher court - but at what cost? How many ordinary people can afford justice - I don't mean the bottom 20% but the sandwiched class who get nothing from the govt including legal aid.
This is an obvious case but I am sure there are many borderline cases where unspoken prejudices based on race/language/religion/sex/etc. has clouded the judgements.
Incidentally since the hearing was held in open court why is the name of that judge not revealed? Will the government now remove that unqualified person before our courts' integrtity is inadvertently eroded?
Posted by: goaheadbingostan at Wed Dec 09 09:33:55 SGT 2009
Judges are to be impartial and hear out the case thouroughly. A DJ was removed for her impartiality for aiding the prosecution. 3 policemen was acquied for gang raping a Thai prostitute when the CA heard that the Trial Judge did the same. In this case, the Judge should excercise patience and grant indulgence to both parties to present their arguments. Oh yes, Judges have Discretionary powers too.
Posted by: Patpong_Girl at Wed Dec 09 06:24:55 SGT 2009
Yes impartiality is essential but if you have big time lawyers doing your case, you are at a better stage that the one with a lawyer who is not well known. That's society.
Posted by: sakuratoratora at Wed Dec 09 17:02:53 SGT 2009
How many more cases went unreported, and brushed aside as "wasting everyone's time"...I think the answer is clear. When one has reached the highest position in the land, it is easy to call people names and do things the quick and dirty way (unfair).
Posted by: lplp at Wed Dec 09 16:56:15 SGT 2009
Let's hope we have more judges with the caliber and integrity/impartialness of Steven Chong. More importantly, he presents a humble and compassionate side.
Posted by: coconut3088 at Wed Dec 09 10:30:07 SGT 2009
This is the fundamental flaw of having one person presiding and deciding as judge. Of course one can appeal to a higher court - but at what cost? How many ordinary people can afford justice - I don't mean the bottom 20% but the sandwiched class who get nothing from the govt including legal aid.
This is an obvious case but I am sure there are many borderline cases where unspoken prejudices based on race/language/religion/sex/etc. has clouded the judgements.
Incidentally since the hearing was held in open court why is the name of that judge not revealed? Will the government now remove that unqualified person before our courts' integrtity is inadvertently eroded?
Posted by: goaheadbingostan at Wed Dec 09 09:33:55 SGT 2009
Judges are to be impartial and hear out the case thouroughly. A DJ was removed for her impartiality for aiding the prosecution. 3 policemen was acquied for gang raping a Thai prostitute when the CA heard that the Trial Judge did the same. In this case, the Judge should excercise patience and grant indulgence to both parties to present their arguments. Oh yes, Judges have Discretionary powers too.
Posted by: Patpong_Girl at Wed Dec 09 06:24:55 SGT 2009
The Elfredian Conundrum
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/1...rom-sdp-in-1996/comment-page-2/#comment-47201
Elfred on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 8:32 pm
Put it this way, it’s hence Chiam was somehow forced to resigned over a party he has lost control over. And who had it in control literally took over.
Accordingly, Dr Chee went on a strike because a PAP MP sacked him, without Chiam’s acknowledgement. Now what if Ling How Doong organises an assassination over Lee Kuan Yew as a SDP member grouping without Dr Chee’s acknowledgement?
Then Dr Chee lost control of SDP’s CEC, and Ling How Doong took over? I mean, what if, and how does that sound?
The point is, Dr Chee NEVER got elected before, yet he was to succeed Mr Chiam in SDP, after Chiam resigned. As we have seen so far, Dr Chee still led SDP into protests and such after Mr Chiam lost control and had to go, and what happened to SDP members?
So… Politically speaking, Dr Chee took over Mr Chiam who unwillingly had to step down… because if going by Dr Chee’s leadership, Mr Chiam could likely a bankrupt by now. So, is it really that far off to say that Mr Chiam had to leave a SDP under Dr Chee?
My view…
Wake up on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 10:01 pm
Elfred, I think your English Comprehension skills are very poor. Please read the post again. Re-read the part written on TODAY, 10 March 2009.
deoxin, if a disobediance of a WRONG law is called a “cult”, then what do you call mental switch off to things you know that is wong, disobeying to your own conscious, ignoring your own moral standing, and shamelessly defying logic?!?
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:16 am
Wake Up,
I am just putting things very simply from all angles. Today had Dr Chee’s own words, but so would MM, the MPs, and all oppositions’ own views. Just because Dr Chee said so doesn’t mean anything.
Remember at one time, an SPP was talking also about Chiam’s ‘ousting’. Can’t remember, but Chiam seemed to be at the invitation of another joined SPP instead.
Assuming this, would the MM resigned his own PAP (the party he helmed) the way Dr Chee described Chiam did??? And why would a never elected newbie Dr Chee be ending up the party head? You assume me to just take in his own words without THINKING?
It’s ridiculous!
You assumed Chiam and the rest who left SDP to form SPP to just ‘resign’ and never got ousted… In political sense, it makes little sense… say, MM started PAP, and he ‘resigned’ peaceful while in politics, and go and start PPP… Nosense.
Dr Chee must have left out something important… something that made him the head of SDP without even elected or what, something so gross that Chiam HAD TO go, with resignation or whatever. It’s HIS party that he HAD TO go. Got it? It’s already some sort of ousting.
So Wake Up, you got any insight?
It’s just like you expect Chiam to sponsor MM Lee when (assuming) they are loggerheads. Something must have been left out. Dr Chee’s version dosn’t make sense. Because there is NO way I’d believe that Chiam resigned from SDP with Dr Chee took over without ‘Ousting’, since it is being very obvious, Chiam has never the thought of exiting politics, and SDP was his flagship!
Doesn’t make political cow sense. It’s not about English comprehension.
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:18 am
Elfred,
Chee couldn’t take over SDP without SDP CEC’s acquiescence.
Chiam See Tong is someone whose only interest is to take care of his own backside, and he can’t do that playing second fiddle. (At that point in time, there was no question of bankruptcy. You’re using hindsight to argue your point, very PAPpy dog like. White dogs have a bad temperament, I hear.)
Otherwise, you could say the same of WP. Low took over, and an unwilling JBJ had to resign?
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:26 am
Dr Chee will just be attending a dinner.
Nothing to suggest the two men have long buried their differences and are on cordial terms.
If you’d just review the recent RP function (to which the Prataman was invited, but did not attend) Youtube video, Dr Chee stood on the same stage as the rest of the Ministars wannabe, but stood well to one side.
Bankrupts have their self-respect too. Why mix with aspirant ‘opposition’ millionaires.
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 2:10 am
Lee Hsien Tau,
Look, Cold Storage came and before that, Lim Chin Siong… Everybody knew what the gahmen was about. It was just there you are on the opposite side, I don’t like it and here you go. I am not saying that the oppositions were good or not.
What I am saying is this… Dr Chee’s style, right from the beginning is very ‘hot’. It’s simply like someone who doesn’t really check things out before moving out. And why, besides Ling How Doong an elected-MP, we have such a hot-headed rookie who could garner the support of the CEC? That’s what I am focusing. And how is that the CEC kicked away an elected MP, the leader who started SDP and chose Dr Chee?
Do you know what this means in politics?
Betrayal.
You said Chiam only look after his own backside, but SDP under him got more than himself into parliament. Is it his problem or the problems of those who said so? And who approved Dr Chee’s insertion into a relatively new and small SDP?
Would it be someone else to sign any membership (cards) than Chiam?
You see, the way Dr Chee put it is all too simple. He’s blatantly explaining it as if Chiam went on all the troubles to start a SDP just to resign with no issues and him the rookies to be taking over… It’s like if Lee Kuan Yew were to resign and Lim Chin Siong took over, it’s not ousted.
You don’t treat Chiam who started the party like that. Dr Chee’s Today ‘revelation’ went nowhere. And you are calling me dogs and PAP dogs when I am no longer with PAP.
At that point, you would have already realised that such meaningless confrontational approach against the incumbent is not going to be good. It’s not as if that MP (remember what ex-comrade Mah said: You are ONLY an MP) killed his father or raped his mother… It’s very obvious SDP’s rise tumbled after Dr Chee got to head SDP. He’s leading himself initially the wrong way, and SDP got him to lead the SDP into crushing defeat.
Is that hence not something wrong?
Surprisingly, the CEC actually chose a rookie after Chiam got ousted. And I will the term ‘ousted’ naturally.
Chiam of course won’t play second fiddle. The CEC has all the intention to replace him, who started the party, with a rookie like Dr Chee… Not to say he started SDP, the whole choice of the leadership and the people making the choice didn’t justify. Not to say, Chiam got elected again and again.
You can call me Dogs and other defamatory things, but… if you are going to convince anybody, you must use some brains. Dr Chee himself doesn’t really understand he’s making a big hole in a story he needs to fill. It’s still ‘ousted’, got it?
Do you think if MM Lee were to offer Elfred the role of his Minister Mentor… do you think I can just grab? Do you think if I do grab, what will the rest do? Can I get their support? But amazingly, you all are explaining as if once Chiam has no more choice, he’d ‘happily’ resign or accept or pass his throne to Dr Chee…
Does it make any political cow sense?
Is it REALLY because Chiam only cares for himself, or Dr Chee has something else backing him up… such as some… foreigners? Look, I also dun know, so we guess. Because calling me dogs… you must have the brains to justify.
Low does took over, but you must remember, Low WAS not the one who started WP or Labor Front, not JBJ. Your political common sense is starting to agitate me. You check Chiam… he thought he needed a party for election, that was why he went about starting SDP. And SDP did well under his leadership, the people like his honest image…
Then now, you come and say, Chiam left happily, no conflict, he resigned and CEC’s problem… Yes. This is a big problem, because CEC’s choice made no sense from the start. You said Chiam only cares for his backside… But Dr Chee went on hunger strike against this MP boss, had he cared to discuss his move in advance with Chiam? And then you belittle Chiam here… telling me he only cares for himself.
But the fact is, his followers started SPP so that this Chiam who only cares for himself can be the leader. And yes… SPP has an MP, SDP has never an MP since…
You don’t make sense, you can call me whatever you want. However, remember, if you can’t justify your labels on myself… you make it a habit on other people, you go to court.
So here, the point is definitely not Chiam not willing to play second fiddle. The point is, why change a winning composition to risk a change? People usually change only when they are losing. If you betting on a football team, and that team’s coach always win, would you want the team to change coach?
Don’t talk nosense… especially on politics with Elfred.
Robox on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 2:59 am
STOP BAWLING!
Er…I mean, “Stop Bawling, you PAP + Other pposition Parties’ IBs!”
Yes, this is indeed a sad day. For SDP bashers, that is.
In one stroke, several of their standard-issue lines that were personally prepackaged for them by the Chief Executive of IB, Lee Kuan Yew can no longer be used.
SDP bashers go through a very stringent selection process and are appointed on the basis that their minds are blank slates on which their Chief Executive can write ANYTHING.
This leaves the SDP Bashing Team the very scary prospect of doing the previously unimaginable: thinking for themselves instead of being led around by their noses by The Great Manipulator of Feeble Minds, Lee Kuan Yew.
Yes, I would be bawling too.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/1...rom-sdp-in-1996/comment-page-2/#comment-47201
Elfred on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 8:32 pm
Put it this way, it’s hence Chiam was somehow forced to resigned over a party he has lost control over. And who had it in control literally took over.
Accordingly, Dr Chee went on a strike because a PAP MP sacked him, without Chiam’s acknowledgement. Now what if Ling How Doong organises an assassination over Lee Kuan Yew as a SDP member grouping without Dr Chee’s acknowledgement?
Then Dr Chee lost control of SDP’s CEC, and Ling How Doong took over? I mean, what if, and how does that sound?
The point is, Dr Chee NEVER got elected before, yet he was to succeed Mr Chiam in SDP, after Chiam resigned. As we have seen so far, Dr Chee still led SDP into protests and such after Mr Chiam lost control and had to go, and what happened to SDP members?
So… Politically speaking, Dr Chee took over Mr Chiam who unwillingly had to step down… because if going by Dr Chee’s leadership, Mr Chiam could likely a bankrupt by now. So, is it really that far off to say that Mr Chiam had to leave a SDP under Dr Chee?
My view…
Wake up on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 10:01 pm
Elfred, I think your English Comprehension skills are very poor. Please read the post again. Re-read the part written on TODAY, 10 March 2009.
deoxin, if a disobediance of a WRONG law is called a “cult”, then what do you call mental switch off to things you know that is wong, disobeying to your own conscious, ignoring your own moral standing, and shamelessly defying logic?!?
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:16 am
Wake Up,
I am just putting things very simply from all angles. Today had Dr Chee’s own words, but so would MM, the MPs, and all oppositions’ own views. Just because Dr Chee said so doesn’t mean anything.
Remember at one time, an SPP was talking also about Chiam’s ‘ousting’. Can’t remember, but Chiam seemed to be at the invitation of another joined SPP instead.
Assuming this, would the MM resigned his own PAP (the party he helmed) the way Dr Chee described Chiam did??? And why would a never elected newbie Dr Chee be ending up the party head? You assume me to just take in his own words without THINKING?
It’s ridiculous!
You assumed Chiam and the rest who left SDP to form SPP to just ‘resign’ and never got ousted… In political sense, it makes little sense… say, MM started PAP, and he ‘resigned’ peaceful while in politics, and go and start PPP… Nosense.
Dr Chee must have left out something important… something that made him the head of SDP without even elected or what, something so gross that Chiam HAD TO go, with resignation or whatever. It’s HIS party that he HAD TO go. Got it? It’s already some sort of ousting.
So Wake Up, you got any insight?
It’s just like you expect Chiam to sponsor MM Lee when (assuming) they are loggerheads. Something must have been left out. Dr Chee’s version dosn’t make sense. Because there is NO way I’d believe that Chiam resigned from SDP with Dr Chee took over without ‘Ousting’, since it is being very obvious, Chiam has never the thought of exiting politics, and SDP was his flagship!
Doesn’t make political cow sense. It’s not about English comprehension.
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:18 am
Elfred,
Chee couldn’t take over SDP without SDP CEC’s acquiescence.
Chiam See Tong is someone whose only interest is to take care of his own backside, and he can’t do that playing second fiddle. (At that point in time, there was no question of bankruptcy. You’re using hindsight to argue your point, very PAPpy dog like. White dogs have a bad temperament, I hear.)
Otherwise, you could say the same of WP. Low took over, and an unwilling JBJ had to resign?
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 12:26 am
Dr Chee will just be attending a dinner.
Nothing to suggest the two men have long buried their differences and are on cordial terms.
If you’d just review the recent RP function (to which the Prataman was invited, but did not attend) Youtube video, Dr Chee stood on the same stage as the rest of the Ministars wannabe, but stood well to one side.
Bankrupts have their self-respect too. Why mix with aspirant ‘opposition’ millionaires.
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 2:10 am
Lee Hsien Tau,
Look, Cold Storage came and before that, Lim Chin Siong… Everybody knew what the gahmen was about. It was just there you are on the opposite side, I don’t like it and here you go. I am not saying that the oppositions were good or not.
What I am saying is this… Dr Chee’s style, right from the beginning is very ‘hot’. It’s simply like someone who doesn’t really check things out before moving out. And why, besides Ling How Doong an elected-MP, we have such a hot-headed rookie who could garner the support of the CEC? That’s what I am focusing. And how is that the CEC kicked away an elected MP, the leader who started SDP and chose Dr Chee?
Do you know what this means in politics?
Betrayal.
You said Chiam only look after his own backside, but SDP under him got more than himself into parliament. Is it his problem or the problems of those who said so? And who approved Dr Chee’s insertion into a relatively new and small SDP?
Would it be someone else to sign any membership (cards) than Chiam?
You see, the way Dr Chee put it is all too simple. He’s blatantly explaining it as if Chiam went on all the troubles to start a SDP just to resign with no issues and him the rookies to be taking over… It’s like if Lee Kuan Yew were to resign and Lim Chin Siong took over, it’s not ousted.
You don’t treat Chiam who started the party like that. Dr Chee’s Today ‘revelation’ went nowhere. And you are calling me dogs and PAP dogs when I am no longer with PAP.
At that point, you would have already realised that such meaningless confrontational approach against the incumbent is not going to be good. It’s not as if that MP (remember what ex-comrade Mah said: You are ONLY an MP) killed his father or raped his mother… It’s very obvious SDP’s rise tumbled after Dr Chee got to head SDP. He’s leading himself initially the wrong way, and SDP got him to lead the SDP into crushing defeat.
Is that hence not something wrong?
Surprisingly, the CEC actually chose a rookie after Chiam got ousted. And I will the term ‘ousted’ naturally.
Chiam of course won’t play second fiddle. The CEC has all the intention to replace him, who started the party, with a rookie like Dr Chee… Not to say he started SDP, the whole choice of the leadership and the people making the choice didn’t justify. Not to say, Chiam got elected again and again.
You can call me Dogs and other defamatory things, but… if you are going to convince anybody, you must use some brains. Dr Chee himself doesn’t really understand he’s making a big hole in a story he needs to fill. It’s still ‘ousted’, got it?
Do you think if MM Lee were to offer Elfred the role of his Minister Mentor… do you think I can just grab? Do you think if I do grab, what will the rest do? Can I get their support? But amazingly, you all are explaining as if once Chiam has no more choice, he’d ‘happily’ resign or accept or pass his throne to Dr Chee…
Does it make any political cow sense?
Is it REALLY because Chiam only cares for himself, or Dr Chee has something else backing him up… such as some… foreigners? Look, I also dun know, so we guess. Because calling me dogs… you must have the brains to justify.
Low does took over, but you must remember, Low WAS not the one who started WP or Labor Front, not JBJ. Your political common sense is starting to agitate me. You check Chiam… he thought he needed a party for election, that was why he went about starting SDP. And SDP did well under his leadership, the people like his honest image…
Then now, you come and say, Chiam left happily, no conflict, he resigned and CEC’s problem… Yes. This is a big problem, because CEC’s choice made no sense from the start. You said Chiam only cares for his backside… But Dr Chee went on hunger strike against this MP boss, had he cared to discuss his move in advance with Chiam? And then you belittle Chiam here… telling me he only cares for himself.
But the fact is, his followers started SPP so that this Chiam who only cares for himself can be the leader. And yes… SPP has an MP, SDP has never an MP since…
You don’t make sense, you can call me whatever you want. However, remember, if you can’t justify your labels on myself… you make it a habit on other people, you go to court.
So here, the point is definitely not Chiam not willing to play second fiddle. The point is, why change a winning composition to risk a change? People usually change only when they are losing. If you betting on a football team, and that team’s coach always win, would you want the team to change coach?
Don’t talk nosense… especially on politics with Elfred.
Robox on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 2:59 am
STOP BAWLING!
Er…I mean, “Stop Bawling, you PAP + Other pposition Parties’ IBs!”
Yes, this is indeed a sad day. For SDP bashers, that is.
In one stroke, several of their standard-issue lines that were personally prepackaged for them by the Chief Executive of IB, Lee Kuan Yew can no longer be used.
SDP bashers go through a very stringent selection process and are appointed on the basis that their minds are blank slates on which their Chief Executive can write ANYTHING.
This leaves the SDP Bashing Team the very scary prospect of doing the previously unimaginable: thinking for themselves instead of being led around by their noses by The Great Manipulator of Feeble Minds, Lee Kuan Yew.
Yes, I would be bawling too.
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 3:31 am
Elfred,
You seem to have a lot of issues with this Chee OUST Chiam event.
But do you have any issue with this Low OUST JBJ event then?
Is there a betrayal there?
Or has your MASTER or former master neber program into your blain this latter event, so it is not such a betrayal.
Or is it because JBJ who resurrected WP happily gave it up to set up another party, even though he neber intended to give up politics.
Who really want to argue politics with you? I find you also bery irridating.
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 4:31 am
Get this very clear… I have retired from PAP. The point is, SDP was started by Chiam See Tong. And people have no respect for Chiam, calling him somebody who looks for his ass only while they tried to ‘protect’ SDP by holding onto Dr Chee’s words.
Don’t forget the insulted Chiam is the rightful owner of this political party called SDP. Not even Ling How Doong is in the position to insult Chiam… who still is in the parliament, while the people have voted him out.
You don’t even need Lee Kuan Yew on this… Use the brains.
Something is very wrong. You willing to tell me that if you got a winning formula, what will it take you… and the entire rational CEC to dump the formula for something else?
Dr Chee’s explanation cut no ice with me… If he is really sincere, he’d have realised that an appointment to take over SPP would have to be by the willingness of he who started it, which is Chiam himself. For instance, if PM Lee Kuan Yew were to appoint Elfred as the PM, fine…
But he started PAP and I have a ideological difference, why must I host as a parasite at PAP and driving this man out? If Dr Chee’s really solid, go start a new party! The problem is, he didn’t. He simply had this CEC chosen him (a complete puzzle of such selection), Chiam had to leave… SDP became an empty shell. Dr Chee has apparently no political honor or understanding to start with.
Mr Danabalan left PAP; he felt something not agreeable. Fine. An honorable retirement. Elfred also left PAP, amicably so. PMO is well-informed, the minister well-informed as well.
If there was no plotting… May I ask, how would a rookie as Dr Chee who apparently acted without bothering Chiam’s attention could have expected to have followers acting NOT LIKE HIM, and be chosen by CEC to lead?
Bashing? I am only asking very simple questions, of which I have no solid answers from, other than calling a PAP dog… The last person who signed my PAP card is a Lee Hsien Loong. I don’t know who signed Dr Chee’s SDP card when he got into SDP. Was Chiam not happy he got to sign a doctorate holder’s card into HIS party?
Was Chiam happy that this doctorate holder simply proceeded on with a protest in open fashion, a tactical political move against his competitor, without even bothering to acknowledge Chiam… the starter of SDP, and I presumed he signed the welcome of Dr Chee.
Let’s not pretend… If that was democratic, the insults here on Chiam is not reflecting so. Chiam had to brave the PAP elders who had to be very hard on contenders since Barisan Socialis’ disturbance. Chiam made attempt in election, then took the troubles and courage to start SDP. And then…
He was betrayed. Period.
Now that people are telling me, that Chiam was the decision of his CEC and he resigned without people ousting him… What? You think Elfred is just born yesterday?
I have already laid out the cards here. Whether I’d get my answers or not, for the matter… the insults on Chiam are already answering my concerns. SDP… Boyz…
Opposition leaders really think that this world is so easy to buy anything they threw at us…? Do you really think that Elfred takes everything MM said without any pinch of salt? I think MM knows. I am just going by normal understanding.
Go and start a party, take all the resources, time and the need to brave against your competitors, and ask yourself… would you want another Dr Chee in your team, have you resigned, and explain that no no no, this is not ousting from the party you created, then he takes over… without obvious experience, and with more qualified others than him for the position.
And then, somebody said ‘Oh, YOU, you are just someone who covers YOUR own ass’ several years later in Temesek Review.
When it was YOU who led the party to greater heights…
So tell me, what’d take you to change the success formula for an unknown green potion?
Feeble minds… Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Would that mother-fucker, you know… that guy who fucked the mother of his client who came for his help, has any explanation on this feeble-minded issue?
Thinking for who? Myself? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Chiam See Tong should be laughing, MM Lee should be laughing as well. I am laughing, no doubt. Is this all thinking for myself?
Chiam, is there any justice here you see fit?
There is nothing here to brawl. I don’t call people dogs, if they are not dogs. Elfred is a brand, the brand stands for quality… and a gust of fart.
So… Why not the SDP invites Chiam back, Dr Chee steps down, and the game resumes with an elected MP…? The problem is, will Dr Chee plays second fiddle to the rightful owner? Am I not asking a fair question?
Do I need MM to make such questions?
Unless anyone has any other meaningful things to add, ie other than calling me dogs and whatever… Good night! And remember, I am as Mr Danabalan, we are no longer party members. So… no standard issues lines or what.
Pretenders… … Well~
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 4:43 am
Lee Hsien Tau,
Yes. I am very disturbed by Chiam Ousted event. And you don’t seem to understand English very well before you got so agitated by me.
Remember this, JBJ doesn’t start Labor Front, the one preceeding would be David Marshall. JBJ was under severe circumstances plunging himself directly at the government, or a MM Lee with plenty of fighting spirit. If Low Thia Khiang did not step in, what would really happen to WP?
In a way, this political event resulted in Low Thia Khiang elected again and again. In politics, your Chiam ousted issue resulted not only Ling How Doong voted out, and never again voted in; but your new head, Dr Chee… he has never succeeded in getting voted in… while the ousted Chiam got elected again and again by the people.
Politically speaking, you start on nosensical political grounds. Of course, I am disturbed by Chiam’s ousting… Hence why should you try to quote Low’s to cover your backside, when the people already told you their answer very clearly on this?
Do you make no political sense… before you even got agitated?
Let me be very frank with you… I don’t follow MM’s, but if you were to confront him, he’d probably shoot at you with the same things which I am throwing at you.
You are not qualified to be agitated. If you are agitated, you’d have chosen a ground on the other side of the people. The people have already chosen to discard SDP after Chiam left. And the people chosen Low Thia Khiang after he took over.
So with what kind of thinking that you presented your argument to me?
Just go sleep… I since know talking to cows come home, such people will NEVER learn… …
As I have always said… what’s the use of insulting PM Lee? What’s use of insulting anybody, including Chiam… WHEN YOU CAN’T EVEN REASON PROPERLY.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
You are not worth my time, Mr Lee Hsien Tau…
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 1:16 pm
Elfred,
I’m not agitated. Not with the likes of you.
Because you are only mouthing what your master, or former master’s view.
The only thing you seem to understand is ‘winning formula’.
PAP is a winning formula. Chiam is a winning formula. Low is a winning formula. If the people chose a winning formula, that fine by Alfred. If the people chose not a winning formula, that’s betrayal, because Alfred, so conditioned by his his master, or that’s how Alfred chose his master anyway, does not see logic in the choice because there’s no winning formula.
So Low has a winning formula. What’s that to WP? Does Low equal WP and WP equal Low? No. Because JBJ equals WP. But Low has the winning formula. So why cannot Low just start his own party? But Low must save WP from JBJ?
That’s bullshit. Not Alfredian bullshit, but Alfredian’ master’s bullshit. Alfred is just the neber-ending mouthpiece.
I gibe you a better explanation. Chiam neber agitated MM. Low neber agitated MM. So to MM (and, Alfred, being his obedient, and same wavelength white dog) see’s winning formula. Chee agitated MM. So Alfred see betrayal. Neber mind if the people have chosen a not winning formula. Screw the choice of the people. Right or not, Alfred?
So Alfred keeps saying he’s retired from the PAP. Dhanabalan also retired etc etc. Does anybody ever retire from the PAP? Because their mouths are gagged until they turn senile or the kick the proverbial bucket.
Elfred,
You seem to have a lot of issues with this Chee OUST Chiam event.
But do you have any issue with this Low OUST JBJ event then?
Is there a betrayal there?
Or has your MASTER or former master neber program into your blain this latter event, so it is not such a betrayal.
Or is it because JBJ who resurrected WP happily gave it up to set up another party, even though he neber intended to give up politics.
Who really want to argue politics with you? I find you also bery irridating.
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 4:31 am
Get this very clear… I have retired from PAP. The point is, SDP was started by Chiam See Tong. And people have no respect for Chiam, calling him somebody who looks for his ass only while they tried to ‘protect’ SDP by holding onto Dr Chee’s words.
Don’t forget the insulted Chiam is the rightful owner of this political party called SDP. Not even Ling How Doong is in the position to insult Chiam… who still is in the parliament, while the people have voted him out.
You don’t even need Lee Kuan Yew on this… Use the brains.
Something is very wrong. You willing to tell me that if you got a winning formula, what will it take you… and the entire rational CEC to dump the formula for something else?
Dr Chee’s explanation cut no ice with me… If he is really sincere, he’d have realised that an appointment to take over SPP would have to be by the willingness of he who started it, which is Chiam himself. For instance, if PM Lee Kuan Yew were to appoint Elfred as the PM, fine…
But he started PAP and I have a ideological difference, why must I host as a parasite at PAP and driving this man out? If Dr Chee’s really solid, go start a new party! The problem is, he didn’t. He simply had this CEC chosen him (a complete puzzle of such selection), Chiam had to leave… SDP became an empty shell. Dr Chee has apparently no political honor or understanding to start with.
Mr Danabalan left PAP; he felt something not agreeable. Fine. An honorable retirement. Elfred also left PAP, amicably so. PMO is well-informed, the minister well-informed as well.
If there was no plotting… May I ask, how would a rookie as Dr Chee who apparently acted without bothering Chiam’s attention could have expected to have followers acting NOT LIKE HIM, and be chosen by CEC to lead?
Bashing? I am only asking very simple questions, of which I have no solid answers from, other than calling a PAP dog… The last person who signed my PAP card is a Lee Hsien Loong. I don’t know who signed Dr Chee’s SDP card when he got into SDP. Was Chiam not happy he got to sign a doctorate holder’s card into HIS party?
Was Chiam happy that this doctorate holder simply proceeded on with a protest in open fashion, a tactical political move against his competitor, without even bothering to acknowledge Chiam… the starter of SDP, and I presumed he signed the welcome of Dr Chee.
Let’s not pretend… If that was democratic, the insults here on Chiam is not reflecting so. Chiam had to brave the PAP elders who had to be very hard on contenders since Barisan Socialis’ disturbance. Chiam made attempt in election, then took the troubles and courage to start SDP. And then…
He was betrayed. Period.
Now that people are telling me, that Chiam was the decision of his CEC and he resigned without people ousting him… What? You think Elfred is just born yesterday?
I have already laid out the cards here. Whether I’d get my answers or not, for the matter… the insults on Chiam are already answering my concerns. SDP… Boyz…
Opposition leaders really think that this world is so easy to buy anything they threw at us…? Do you really think that Elfred takes everything MM said without any pinch of salt? I think MM knows. I am just going by normal understanding.
Go and start a party, take all the resources, time and the need to brave against your competitors, and ask yourself… would you want another Dr Chee in your team, have you resigned, and explain that no no no, this is not ousting from the party you created, then he takes over… without obvious experience, and with more qualified others than him for the position.
And then, somebody said ‘Oh, YOU, you are just someone who covers YOUR own ass’ several years later in Temesek Review.
When it was YOU who led the party to greater heights…
So tell me, what’d take you to change the success formula for an unknown green potion?
Feeble minds… Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Would that mother-fucker, you know… that guy who fucked the mother of his client who came for his help, has any explanation on this feeble-minded issue?
Thinking for who? Myself? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Chiam See Tong should be laughing, MM Lee should be laughing as well. I am laughing, no doubt. Is this all thinking for myself?
Chiam, is there any justice here you see fit?
There is nothing here to brawl. I don’t call people dogs, if they are not dogs. Elfred is a brand, the brand stands for quality… and a gust of fart.
So… Why not the SDP invites Chiam back, Dr Chee steps down, and the game resumes with an elected MP…? The problem is, will Dr Chee plays second fiddle to the rightful owner? Am I not asking a fair question?
Do I need MM to make such questions?
Unless anyone has any other meaningful things to add, ie other than calling me dogs and whatever… Good night! And remember, I am as Mr Danabalan, we are no longer party members. So… no standard issues lines or what.
Pretenders… … Well~
Elfred on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 4:43 am
Lee Hsien Tau,
Yes. I am very disturbed by Chiam Ousted event. And you don’t seem to understand English very well before you got so agitated by me.
Remember this, JBJ doesn’t start Labor Front, the one preceeding would be David Marshall. JBJ was under severe circumstances plunging himself directly at the government, or a MM Lee with plenty of fighting spirit. If Low Thia Khiang did not step in, what would really happen to WP?
In a way, this political event resulted in Low Thia Khiang elected again and again. In politics, your Chiam ousted issue resulted not only Ling How Doong voted out, and never again voted in; but your new head, Dr Chee… he has never succeeded in getting voted in… while the ousted Chiam got elected again and again by the people.
Politically speaking, you start on nosensical political grounds. Of course, I am disturbed by Chiam’s ousting… Hence why should you try to quote Low’s to cover your backside, when the people already told you their answer very clearly on this?
Do you make no political sense… before you even got agitated?
Let me be very frank with you… I don’t follow MM’s, but if you were to confront him, he’d probably shoot at you with the same things which I am throwing at you.
You are not qualified to be agitated. If you are agitated, you’d have chosen a ground on the other side of the people. The people have already chosen to discard SDP after Chiam left. And the people chosen Low Thia Khiang after he took over.
So with what kind of thinking that you presented your argument to me?
Just go sleep… I since know talking to cows come home, such people will NEVER learn… …
As I have always said… what’s the use of insulting PM Lee? What’s use of insulting anybody, including Chiam… WHEN YOU CAN’T EVEN REASON PROPERLY.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
You are not worth my time, Mr Lee Hsien Tau…
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 1:16 pm
Elfred,
I’m not agitated. Not with the likes of you.
Because you are only mouthing what your master, or former master’s view.
The only thing you seem to understand is ‘winning formula’.
PAP is a winning formula. Chiam is a winning formula. Low is a winning formula. If the people chose a winning formula, that fine by Alfred. If the people chose not a winning formula, that’s betrayal, because Alfred, so conditioned by his his master, or that’s how Alfred chose his master anyway, does not see logic in the choice because there’s no winning formula.
So Low has a winning formula. What’s that to WP? Does Low equal WP and WP equal Low? No. Because JBJ equals WP. But Low has the winning formula. So why cannot Low just start his own party? But Low must save WP from JBJ?
That’s bullshit. Not Alfredian bullshit, but Alfredian’ master’s bullshit. Alfred is just the neber-ending mouthpiece.
I gibe you a better explanation. Chiam neber agitated MM. Low neber agitated MM. So to MM (and, Alfred, being his obedient, and same wavelength white dog) see’s winning formula. Chee agitated MM. So Alfred see betrayal. Neber mind if the people have chosen a not winning formula. Screw the choice of the people. Right or not, Alfred?
So Alfred keeps saying he’s retired from the PAP. Dhanabalan also retired etc etc. Does anybody ever retire from the PAP? Because their mouths are gagged until they turn senile or the kick the proverbial bucket.
btan on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 4:03 pm
What is the point of building up pass arguments especially when the parties involved have buried the hatchet and made peace, unless your intention is to sow discord among opposition.
Opposition members are pretty fluid and they move around. This means there is dynamism, not as rigid and monolithic as PAP.
China was once a rigid and monolithic society and they achieved greatness in the past. However, when the “messy barbarians” that are the Europeans came a knocking, after squabbling among themselves for centuries, China has no choice but to capitulate to these.
Opposition are like the Europeans. They may compete among themselves for manpower and resources but they also have cross pollination. They are not monolithic like the PAP. One day, they weakness will also become their strength.
I don’t know about you but I like my government a little less monolithic and have robust debates so that stupid laws will not be rubberstamped as and when the emperor said so.
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 7:41 pm
I’m head-butting the Elfredian and his mercenary master’s view that ‘winning formula’ is the rational choice for joining politics.
Of course, ‘winning formula’ everybody knows, who doesn’t?
But ‘winning formula’ for who?
Does SDP lose because the ‘winning formula’ was Chiam?
Does SPP now win because the ‘winning formula’ is Chiam?
So does WP win because the ‘winning formula’ is Low?
Politics and governance are inter-twinned. Does the citizenry benefit because the ‘winning formula’ is the Old Fart? Or is the ‘winning formula’ for the Old Fart?
Does having an external economy benefit the citizenry because it trickles down to the domestic economy? Or is it just for the sake of vote-buying odd thousand dollars that we vote for PAP every 5 to 6 years?
Of course we cannot just bare with the claim of ‘burying the hatchet. Who cares for anyone burying the bloody hatchet. Does it matter to the citizenry if politicians bury the fucking hatchet?
We are talking ‘winning formula’ here for christ-sake! ‘Winning formula’ yes, but ‘winning formula’ for whom? ‘Winning formula’ so we can survive on bread crumbs?
So we are actually talking about ‘winning formula’ that at least benefit the citizenry, the ‘what’s in it for me?’ question about the ‘winning formula’.
In politics, we cannot simply talk about burying the hatchet for expediency, and sleeping with the enemy for the sake of unity against the enemy’s greater adversary. We must tread with care this sleeping with the enemy thing because it may ricochet and kill you one day, you don’t know if your enemies are acting in cahoots against you…
So we talk about more realistic things like ‘winning formula’ and who benefits, the citizenry or the ‘winning formula’ owner?
Of course, ‘winning formula’ owner should benefit but we are not talking about private enterprise here….
So the question must be asked:
Does Chiam being the ‘winning formula’ mean the citizenry or, for the matter, SPP, benefit?
Does Low being the ‘winning formula’ mean the citizeny or, for the matter, WP, benefit?
Or is being in politics for the sake of getting free parking, and priorities from joining the grassloot organisations being the prime motivations?
Of course it is not about sowing discords. We must be clear about the motivations of our current and future leeders. We don’t want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
What is the point of building up pass arguments especially when the parties involved have buried the hatchet and made peace, unless your intention is to sow discord among opposition.
Opposition members are pretty fluid and they move around. This means there is dynamism, not as rigid and monolithic as PAP.
China was once a rigid and monolithic society and they achieved greatness in the past. However, when the “messy barbarians” that are the Europeans came a knocking, after squabbling among themselves for centuries, China has no choice but to capitulate to these.
Opposition are like the Europeans. They may compete among themselves for manpower and resources but they also have cross pollination. They are not monolithic like the PAP. One day, they weakness will also become their strength.
I don’t know about you but I like my government a little less monolithic and have robust debates so that stupid laws will not be rubberstamped as and when the emperor said so.
lee hsien tau on Thu, 10th Dec 2009 7:41 pm
I’m head-butting the Elfredian and his mercenary master’s view that ‘winning formula’ is the rational choice for joining politics.
Of course, ‘winning formula’ everybody knows, who doesn’t?
But ‘winning formula’ for who?
Does SDP lose because the ‘winning formula’ was Chiam?
Does SPP now win because the ‘winning formula’ is Chiam?
So does WP win because the ‘winning formula’ is Low?
Politics and governance are inter-twinned. Does the citizenry benefit because the ‘winning formula’ is the Old Fart? Or is the ‘winning formula’ for the Old Fart?
Does having an external economy benefit the citizenry because it trickles down to the domestic economy? Or is it just for the sake of vote-buying odd thousand dollars that we vote for PAP every 5 to 6 years?
Of course we cannot just bare with the claim of ‘burying the hatchet. Who cares for anyone burying the bloody hatchet. Does it matter to the citizenry if politicians bury the fucking hatchet?
We are talking ‘winning formula’ here for christ-sake! ‘Winning formula’ yes, but ‘winning formula’ for whom? ‘Winning formula’ so we can survive on bread crumbs?
So we are actually talking about ‘winning formula’ that at least benefit the citizenry, the ‘what’s in it for me?’ question about the ‘winning formula’.
In politics, we cannot simply talk about burying the hatchet for expediency, and sleeping with the enemy for the sake of unity against the enemy’s greater adversary. We must tread with care this sleeping with the enemy thing because it may ricochet and kill you one day, you don’t know if your enemies are acting in cahoots against you…
So we talk about more realistic things like ‘winning formula’ and who benefits, the citizenry or the ‘winning formula’ owner?
Of course, ‘winning formula’ owner should benefit but we are not talking about private enterprise here….
So the question must be asked:
Does Chiam being the ‘winning formula’ mean the citizenry or, for the matter, SPP, benefit?
Does Low being the ‘winning formula’ mean the citizeny or, for the matter, WP, benefit?
Or is being in politics for the sake of getting free parking, and priorities from joining the grassloot organisations being the prime motivations?
Of course it is not about sowing discords. We must be clear about the motivations of our current and future leeders. We don’t want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor.........the details
Yes, yes, yes, and it involves Lawyer Yap Kok Keong yet again in the thick of things............and Allen & Gledhill.......
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/65164.html
Excerpt:
9 Some time after these documents were signed, Koh sought fresh legal advice. He approached BMS, whom he casually knew, for advice. On BMS’s advice, Koh and his wife affirmed statutory declarations fully disclosing the various alleged breaches of duties by the agents, solicitors and moneylenders involved in the cash-back arrangement. Relying on these statutory declarations, similar complaints were also lodged with the police (on 12 January 2004)[note: 8], the HDB[note: 9] and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“the IRAS”)[note: 10] (both on 27 February 2004).
10 The Agents and the Buyers were shocked by this bombshell. Teo, nevertheless, persevered in her attempts to persuade the Sellers to proceed with the sale of the Flat. Koh, however, adamantly refused to deal with her directly. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged at the premises of M/s K K Yap (the “K K Yap Meeting”) on 15 January 2004. BMS, the Sellers, the Buyers and Ms Ong Bee Lay (“Ong”), a solicitor from Messers PKWA Law Practice LLC, were present at the meeting. Ong attended the meeting at the Buyers’ request. The Agents were not invited to attend. During this meeting, Hong informed BMS about the cash-back arrangement. In response, BMS tersely stated that “he did not want to know about [the] arrangements” from Hong and would sue on the price stated on the OTP.[note: 11] No settlement was reached. After the meeting, Ong advised the Buyers that the transaction was illegal (she had not been earlier informed by Hong of these details prior to the meeting) and that she would not act for them to complete the deal. The Buyers accepted her advice and called off the purchase.
11 On BMS’s advice, Koh engaged a new agent to sell the Flat. It was finally sold, on 21 March 2004, for only $380,000.[note: 12] On 2 April 2004, BMS sent a letter of demand to the Buyers, demanding payment of $120,000, comprising $110,000 (being the difference between the inflated sale price and the price at which the Flat was eventually sold at) and $10,000 (for expenses).[note: 13] There was no response to this demand.[note: 14]
12 On 10 April 2004, the Straits Times published an article (Tanya Fong, “Flat seller claims he was asked to inflate its price” The Straits Times (10 April 2004) at p 3) in which Koh reportedly asserted that he was “asked to inflate the selling price of his flat by $100,000”.[note: 15] This article immediately caught the attention of Propnex’s management. PropNex then hastily arranged for a meeting at the Marina Mandarin Singapore hotel (the “Marina Mandarin Meeting”) on the same evening. The Marina Mandarin Meeting was attended by BMS, Mr K K Yap, Koh, the Agents, and Mr Mohd Ismail, the chief executive officer of Propnex. During this meeting, Ho offered to pay the Sellers $20,000 to settle all the claims made by the Sellers, but his offer was roundly rejected by BMS.
13 Two days after the Marina Mandarin Meeting, a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim (the “SOC”)[note: 16] was filed by M/s K K Yap on behalf of the Sellers in the Subordinate Courts, with the Buyers named as the defendants. The SOC read:
1. The Plaintiffs are the lessees of a Housing and Development Board apartment known as Block 82 Redhill Lane #02-75 Singapore 150082 (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”).
2. On the 30th. September 2003, the Plaintiffs granted the Defendants an Option to Purchase the said [sic] at a price of $490,000.
3. On the same day, the Defendants duly exercised the said Option.
4. The consent/approval of the Housing Development Board for the sale and purchase was duly obtained. The sale and purchase was fixed for completion on 5th. January 2004.
5. The Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to complete the sale and purchase on 5th January 2004 or thereafter despite a Notice to Complete issued pursuant to Clause 29 of the Singapore Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999 being served on their solicitors.
6. The Plaintiffs thereafter put the said Premises up for sale. In or about late March 2004, the Plaintiffs received an offer for $380,000 for the said premises. The said offer was the highest that was received. The Plaintiffs thereafter, granted an Option to the offerors to sell the said premises to them at the price of $380,000.
7. By reason of the aforesaid, the Defendants have been in breach of agreement and the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
And the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants, jointly and severally for:-
i. damages and loss;
ii. interest;
iii. cost.
It is worth noting, at this juncture, two points. There were no references, whatsoever, to the agreed sale price of $390,000. On the face of it, this was a claim for a breach of contract in connection with the sale of the Flat for the sum of $490,000. Further, the claim for damages was not quantified.
14 Not long after the filing of the SOC, the Buyers and the Agents agreed with the Sellers to settle the claim for $70,000.[note: 17] The Buyers were represented by solicitors in the settlement agreement. The Agents testified that they were advised by PropNex’s management (and its solicitors) to settle the claim. They were also very concerned about being prosecuted for their involvement in the cash-back arrangement.[note: 18] The Buyers apparently also had similar concerns and contributed towards the settlement.[note: 19] Of this $70,000 settlement sum, the Agents paid $55,000 while the Buyers contributed $15,000.[note: 20] The suit was later discontinued on 30 April 2004.[note: 21] Before that, the Buyers did not file any pleadings in relation to the claim; neither did their solicitors appear to dispute the legitimacy of the claim before the suit was discontinued. Further, neither BMS nor Koh had, as a term of the settlement, agreed to withdraw all the earlier complaints they had lodged.
Yes, yes, yes, and it involves Lawyer Yap Kok Keong yet again in the thick of things............and Allen & Gledhill.......
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/65164.html
Excerpt:
9 Some time after these documents were signed, Koh sought fresh legal advice. He approached BMS, whom he casually knew, for advice. On BMS’s advice, Koh and his wife affirmed statutory declarations fully disclosing the various alleged breaches of duties by the agents, solicitors and moneylenders involved in the cash-back arrangement. Relying on these statutory declarations, similar complaints were also lodged with the police (on 12 January 2004)[note: 8], the HDB[note: 9] and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“the IRAS”)[note: 10] (both on 27 February 2004).
10 The Agents and the Buyers were shocked by this bombshell. Teo, nevertheless, persevered in her attempts to persuade the Sellers to proceed with the sale of the Flat. Koh, however, adamantly refused to deal with her directly. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged at the premises of M/s K K Yap (the “K K Yap Meeting”) on 15 January 2004. BMS, the Sellers, the Buyers and Ms Ong Bee Lay (“Ong”), a solicitor from Messers PKWA Law Practice LLC, were present at the meeting. Ong attended the meeting at the Buyers’ request. The Agents were not invited to attend. During this meeting, Hong informed BMS about the cash-back arrangement. In response, BMS tersely stated that “he did not want to know about [the] arrangements” from Hong and would sue on the price stated on the OTP.[note: 11] No settlement was reached. After the meeting, Ong advised the Buyers that the transaction was illegal (she had not been earlier informed by Hong of these details prior to the meeting) and that she would not act for them to complete the deal. The Buyers accepted her advice and called off the purchase.
11 On BMS’s advice, Koh engaged a new agent to sell the Flat. It was finally sold, on 21 March 2004, for only $380,000.[note: 12] On 2 April 2004, BMS sent a letter of demand to the Buyers, demanding payment of $120,000, comprising $110,000 (being the difference between the inflated sale price and the price at which the Flat was eventually sold at) and $10,000 (for expenses).[note: 13] There was no response to this demand.[note: 14]
12 On 10 April 2004, the Straits Times published an article (Tanya Fong, “Flat seller claims he was asked to inflate its price” The Straits Times (10 April 2004) at p 3) in which Koh reportedly asserted that he was “asked to inflate the selling price of his flat by $100,000”.[note: 15] This article immediately caught the attention of Propnex’s management. PropNex then hastily arranged for a meeting at the Marina Mandarin Singapore hotel (the “Marina Mandarin Meeting”) on the same evening. The Marina Mandarin Meeting was attended by BMS, Mr K K Yap, Koh, the Agents, and Mr Mohd Ismail, the chief executive officer of Propnex. During this meeting, Ho offered to pay the Sellers $20,000 to settle all the claims made by the Sellers, but his offer was roundly rejected by BMS.
13 Two days after the Marina Mandarin Meeting, a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim (the “SOC”)[note: 16] was filed by M/s K K Yap on behalf of the Sellers in the Subordinate Courts, with the Buyers named as the defendants. The SOC read:
1. The Plaintiffs are the lessees of a Housing and Development Board apartment known as Block 82 Redhill Lane #02-75 Singapore 150082 (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”).
2. On the 30th. September 2003, the Plaintiffs granted the Defendants an Option to Purchase the said [sic] at a price of $490,000.
3. On the same day, the Defendants duly exercised the said Option.
4. The consent/approval of the Housing Development Board for the sale and purchase was duly obtained. The sale and purchase was fixed for completion on 5th. January 2004.
5. The Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to complete the sale and purchase on 5th January 2004 or thereafter despite a Notice to Complete issued pursuant to Clause 29 of the Singapore Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999 being served on their solicitors.
6. The Plaintiffs thereafter put the said Premises up for sale. In or about late March 2004, the Plaintiffs received an offer for $380,000 for the said premises. The said offer was the highest that was received. The Plaintiffs thereafter, granted an Option to the offerors to sell the said premises to them at the price of $380,000.
7. By reason of the aforesaid, the Defendants have been in breach of agreement and the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
And the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants, jointly and severally for:-
i. damages and loss;
ii. interest;
iii. cost.
It is worth noting, at this juncture, two points. There were no references, whatsoever, to the agreed sale price of $390,000. On the face of it, this was a claim for a breach of contract in connection with the sale of the Flat for the sum of $490,000. Further, the claim for damages was not quantified.
14 Not long after the filing of the SOC, the Buyers and the Agents agreed with the Sellers to settle the claim for $70,000.[note: 17] The Buyers were represented by solicitors in the settlement agreement. The Agents testified that they were advised by PropNex’s management (and its solicitors) to settle the claim. They were also very concerned about being prosecuted for their involvement in the cash-back arrangement.[note: 18] The Buyers apparently also had similar concerns and contributed towards the settlement.[note: 19] Of this $70,000 settlement sum, the Agents paid $55,000 while the Buyers contributed $15,000.[note: 20] The suit was later discontinued on 30 April 2004.[note: 21] Before that, the Buyers did not file any pleadings in relation to the claim; neither did their solicitors appear to dispute the legitimacy of the claim before the suit was discontinued. Further, neither BMS nor Koh had, as a term of the settlement, agreed to withdraw all the earlier complaints they had lodged.
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Aug 22, 2009
HELPING TO FILE FALSE CLAIM
Kangaroo Court to decide: Is a lawyer responsible for verifying facts stated by a client
Convicted lawyer says he is contesting a point of law of public interest
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Singh was convicted of helping to file a false claim. His appeal to the High Court failed, but the Appeal Court will hear his case and debate the extent to which a lawyer is responsible for verifying facts stated by a client. -- ST, BT FILE PHOTOS
THE Court of Appeal will next week hear a case which may have significant impact in the way lawyers interact with their clients in future.
The case involves lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh, 61, who was convicted two years ago of helping to file a false claim - an offence which carried a mandatory jail term.
In January this year, he appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court to overturn the decision by the Subordinate Courts.
This would have been the end of the road, as far as legal recourse goes, for Singh.
But in this instance, he applied through the Registrar to have his case heard by the Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court, which usually only hears such cases when questions of law of public interest are involved.
He said he was contesting a point of law which had significant public interest.
In a rare move, the court agreed to hear the case.
The hearing will allow the three-judge court to consider issues of concern to the legal community here, such as the extent to which lawyers are responsible for verifying claims made by their clients which later turn out to be false.
Currently, lawyers take most statements given to them by clients on faith, and assume them to be true. But if the Court of Appeal agrees with Singh, this may change.
Its views on the case could put both lawyers and their clients on notice that further verification of such claims may be needed to ensure they are accurate.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/12/17/chiams-grc-move-gamble-or-gambit/
Chiam’s GRC move: Gamble or gambit?
December 17, 2009
By Kor Kian Beng from Straits Times
WHAT exactly does Mr Chiam See Tong have up his sleeve for the next general election?
People have been asking this question since the Potong Pasir MP and opposition veteran signalled his intention late last year to vacate his single-member constituency (SMC) and contest a group representation constituency (GRC).
Why would he want to relinquish the ward he has held since 1984, and run the risk of losing in a GRC? Why not retire on a high from Potong Pasir and give way to a successor in the next election?
After all, Mr Chiam is 74 years old and recovering from a mild stroke. He has already made history as the longest-serving opposition MP.
It is indeed puzzling why so astute a politician would come out so openly, so strongly and so early about his intentions, especially in Singapore, where opposition politicians tend to guard their electoral plans closely.
My initial assumption was that Mr Chiam was simply trying to quell speculation that he would be retiring from politics. What better way to keep people guessing than to declare that he is setting his sights on a bigger prize – a GRC no less, probably Bishan-Toa Payoh because of its proximity to Potong Pasir? But I didn’t think he would actually contest a GRC.
However, last Saturday, as I listened intently to Mr Chiam’s speech at a celebratory dinner to mark his 25th year as the MP of Potong Pasir, I began to think that he might just be serious. It dawned on me that it would be foolhardy indeed to write off Mr Chiam. He has a quarter century of political experience behind him, braving the onslaught of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in his ward. He is tough; he is resilient.
One pointer was when Mr Chiam called on the opposition to contest as many GRCs and SMCs as possible in the next general election, which must be held no later than early 2012.
The call seemed odd considering that it came from a man credited with the ‘by-election’ strategy of letting the ruling PAP return to power on Nomination Day so people might be more inclined to vote for the opposition on Polling Day.
The other indication was when the veteran ended his 10-minute speech with a battle cry: ‘Let Potong Pasir be a power base and beacon for more opposition victories.’
Mr Chiam didn’t sound like someone contemplating retirement from politics. If one put his speech together with some other recent moves, one would gain the impression that he was serious about contesting a GRC.
In January this year, Mr Chiam’s wife was brought into the central executive committee of the Singapore People’s Party, which he heads. It is one of three parties in the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), which Mr Chiam also chairs. The other two parties in the alliance are the Singapore Malay National Organisation (or PKMS) and the Singapore Justice Party.
Some observers believe Mrs Lina Chiam, her husband’s closest political confidante, is most likely to replace him in the opposition ward. At the dinner, she did the rounds, greeting opposition leaders at other tables. They included the Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang, the Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan, the National Solidarity Party’s Sebastian Teo, and the Reform Party’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Watching her, one opposition figure attending the dinner remarked: ‘She looks like she is the MP here.’
Yet another sign: Mr Chiam has been in talks with Mr Jeyaretnam since June to discuss possible collaboration. Mr Jeyaretnam told The Straits Times that talks are still on and that both are exploring the possibility of putting together a joint team to contest a GRC.
Does this mean Reform will be joining SDA? Mr Jeyaretnam isn’t telling, except to say ‘there would be a need for an umbrella structure’.
Why is Mr Chiam thinking of a GRC – and why now?
Perhaps it is all about leaving a lasting legacy. He probably realises that it may not be a sure-win for him if he were to defend his Potong Pasir seat in the next election, having seen his winning margin there dip over the years. Mr Chiam garnered 55.8 per cent of the votes in the 2006 polls, down from a high of near-70 per cent in 1991.
So, instead of staying put in Potong Pasir and possibly ending his political career in defeat, he could well be thinking: Why not go out on a high by contesting a GRC?
Yes, the odds of losing in a GRC are definitely higher. But he might be thinking: If I were to lose, I might as well lose in a GRC.
Another important consideration could be Mr Chiam’s dream of breaking yet another psychological barrier for the opposition. He knows full well that a GRC is the ‘holy grail’ for the opposition. No opposition party has won a GRC since the inception of such constituencies in the 1988 elections. Mr Chiam has already made history as the longest-serving opposition MP. He could make history again by winning a GRC.
Judging from the support he enjoys from Potong Pasir residents and pro-opposition Singaporeans living elsewhere, Mr Chiam could arguably be the opposition’s best hope of breaking the PAP’s lock on GRCs.
Why is he making his intention public so early? I suspect he is doing so for several reasons.
First, he wants to test the ground and see how Potong Pasir residents respond to the idea of not having him around, and also whether residents in the ward he is eyeing will warm to him.
Second, he wants to prepare his party for the possibility that someone from among them – apart from his wife – will have to take over from him.
Third, he could be trying to attract people to join his GRC team.
For years, Mr Chiam has been criticised for not being ambitious enough, for caring only about Potong Pasir. The signs are he is out to prove his critics wrong – again.
Chiam’s GRC move: Gamble or gambit?
December 17, 2009
By Kor Kian Beng from Straits Times
WHAT exactly does Mr Chiam See Tong have up his sleeve for the next general election?
People have been asking this question since the Potong Pasir MP and opposition veteran signalled his intention late last year to vacate his single-member constituency (SMC) and contest a group representation constituency (GRC).
Why would he want to relinquish the ward he has held since 1984, and run the risk of losing in a GRC? Why not retire on a high from Potong Pasir and give way to a successor in the next election?
After all, Mr Chiam is 74 years old and recovering from a mild stroke. He has already made history as the longest-serving opposition MP.
It is indeed puzzling why so astute a politician would come out so openly, so strongly and so early about his intentions, especially in Singapore, where opposition politicians tend to guard their electoral plans closely.
My initial assumption was that Mr Chiam was simply trying to quell speculation that he would be retiring from politics. What better way to keep people guessing than to declare that he is setting his sights on a bigger prize – a GRC no less, probably Bishan-Toa Payoh because of its proximity to Potong Pasir? But I didn’t think he would actually contest a GRC.
However, last Saturday, as I listened intently to Mr Chiam’s speech at a celebratory dinner to mark his 25th year as the MP of Potong Pasir, I began to think that he might just be serious. It dawned on me that it would be foolhardy indeed to write off Mr Chiam. He has a quarter century of political experience behind him, braving the onslaught of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in his ward. He is tough; he is resilient.
One pointer was when Mr Chiam called on the opposition to contest as many GRCs and SMCs as possible in the next general election, which must be held no later than early 2012.
The call seemed odd considering that it came from a man credited with the ‘by-election’ strategy of letting the ruling PAP return to power on Nomination Day so people might be more inclined to vote for the opposition on Polling Day.
The other indication was when the veteran ended his 10-minute speech with a battle cry: ‘Let Potong Pasir be a power base and beacon for more opposition victories.’
Mr Chiam didn’t sound like someone contemplating retirement from politics. If one put his speech together with some other recent moves, one would gain the impression that he was serious about contesting a GRC.
In January this year, Mr Chiam’s wife was brought into the central executive committee of the Singapore People’s Party, which he heads. It is one of three parties in the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), which Mr Chiam also chairs. The other two parties in the alliance are the Singapore Malay National Organisation (or PKMS) and the Singapore Justice Party.
Some observers believe Mrs Lina Chiam, her husband’s closest political confidante, is most likely to replace him in the opposition ward. At the dinner, she did the rounds, greeting opposition leaders at other tables. They included the Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang, the Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan, the National Solidarity Party’s Sebastian Teo, and the Reform Party’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Watching her, one opposition figure attending the dinner remarked: ‘She looks like she is the MP here.’
Yet another sign: Mr Chiam has been in talks with Mr Jeyaretnam since June to discuss possible collaboration. Mr Jeyaretnam told The Straits Times that talks are still on and that both are exploring the possibility of putting together a joint team to contest a GRC.
Does this mean Reform will be joining SDA? Mr Jeyaretnam isn’t telling, except to say ‘there would be a need for an umbrella structure’.
Why is Mr Chiam thinking of a GRC – and why now?
Perhaps it is all about leaving a lasting legacy. He probably realises that it may not be a sure-win for him if he were to defend his Potong Pasir seat in the next election, having seen his winning margin there dip over the years. Mr Chiam garnered 55.8 per cent of the votes in the 2006 polls, down from a high of near-70 per cent in 1991.
So, instead of staying put in Potong Pasir and possibly ending his political career in defeat, he could well be thinking: Why not go out on a high by contesting a GRC?
Yes, the odds of losing in a GRC are definitely higher. But he might be thinking: If I were to lose, I might as well lose in a GRC.
Another important consideration could be Mr Chiam’s dream of breaking yet another psychological barrier for the opposition. He knows full well that a GRC is the ‘holy grail’ for the opposition. No opposition party has won a GRC since the inception of such constituencies in the 1988 elections. Mr Chiam has already made history as the longest-serving opposition MP. He could make history again by winning a GRC.
Judging from the support he enjoys from Potong Pasir residents and pro-opposition Singaporeans living elsewhere, Mr Chiam could arguably be the opposition’s best hope of breaking the PAP’s lock on GRCs.
Why is he making his intention public so early? I suspect he is doing so for several reasons.
First, he wants to test the ground and see how Potong Pasir residents respond to the idea of not having him around, and also whether residents in the ward he is eyeing will warm to him.
Second, he wants to prepare his party for the possibility that someone from among them – apart from his wife – will have to take over from him.
Third, he could be trying to attract people to join his GRC team.
For years, Mr Chiam has been criticised for not being ambitious enough, for caring only about Potong Pasir. The signs are he is out to prove his critics wrong – again.
Last edited:
'Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted' is on FaceBook.:p
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=213465746377
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=213465746377
Potong Pasir got ATM machine?
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/0...n-toa-payoh-grc/comment-page-5/#comment-64447
Veteran opposition leader Mr Chiam See Tong will be abandoning his stronghold of Potong Pasir to lead a team to contest in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC led by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.
The stunning news was revealed today by Chairman of the Singapore People’s Party Mr Sin Kek Tong to the media and was published in Shin Min Daily.
It was not revealed who else will be running together with Mr Chiam in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.
Mr Chiam’s wife, retired nurse Ms Lina Loh will take over his place in Potong Pasir.
Mr Chiam first won the single seat of Potong Pasir in 1984 when he defeated PAP’s Mah Bow Tan by winning 60.8 per cent of the valid votes.
He were to keep his seat by winning the subsequent 5 elections and becoming the longest-serving opposition MP in Parliament.
Mr Chiam just celebrate his 25th anniversary as MP for Potong Pasir and judging from the response he received from the residents attending the dinner, it is evident that he is still highly popular among them.
Ms Lina Loh has been working the ground for the last few years and cuts a familiar figure in Potong Pasir.
Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC has not witnessed any electoral contests since 1988 while Mr Chiam won his seat during the last election by 55 per cent of the votes.
Mr Chiam has earlier indicated his desire to break the PAP’s stranglehold on the GRCs by winning the one.
The closest the opposition has come to winning a GRC since the scheme was first introduced in 1988 was at Eunos GRC during the same year where the Workers’ Party trio of Francis Seow, Lee Siew Choh and Mohamad Yackob won 49.1 per cent of the votes.
While Mr Wong may not be the most popular PAP leader in Singapore, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC has been his stronghold for over 20 years and it may be difficult for Mr Chiam to dislodge him.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/0...n-toa-payoh-grc/comment-page-5/#comment-64447
Veteran opposition leader Mr Chiam See Tong will be abandoning his stronghold of Potong Pasir to lead a team to contest in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC led by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.
The stunning news was revealed today by Chairman of the Singapore People’s Party Mr Sin Kek Tong to the media and was published in Shin Min Daily.
It was not revealed who else will be running together with Mr Chiam in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.
Mr Chiam’s wife, retired nurse Ms Lina Loh will take over his place in Potong Pasir.
Mr Chiam first won the single seat of Potong Pasir in 1984 when he defeated PAP’s Mah Bow Tan by winning 60.8 per cent of the valid votes.
He were to keep his seat by winning the subsequent 5 elections and becoming the longest-serving opposition MP in Parliament.
Mr Chiam just celebrate his 25th anniversary as MP for Potong Pasir and judging from the response he received from the residents attending the dinner, it is evident that he is still highly popular among them.
Ms Lina Loh has been working the ground for the last few years and cuts a familiar figure in Potong Pasir.
Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC has not witnessed any electoral contests since 1988 while Mr Chiam won his seat during the last election by 55 per cent of the votes.
Mr Chiam has earlier indicated his desire to break the PAP’s stranglehold on the GRCs by winning the one.
The closest the opposition has come to winning a GRC since the scheme was first introduced in 1988 was at Eunos GRC during the same year where the Workers’ Party trio of Francis Seow, Lee Siew Choh and Mohamad Yackob won 49.1 per cent of the votes.
While Mr Wong may not be the most popular PAP leader in Singapore, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC has been his stronghold for over 20 years and it may be difficult for Mr Chiam to dislodge him.
A LAWYER convicted by a Hong Kong court for stealing from a hotel room will have to face a Court of Three Judges here for professional misconduct.
A two-member disciplinary tribunal presided by Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh held the matter was serious enough to go before the court – the highest body to deal with lawyer misconduct – which can either acquit, suspend or strike him off the rolls.
The lawyer pleaded guilty before the tribunal, which decided to refer the matter to the court instead of imposing its own punishments, like a fine or censure. Industry players said the case made clear that misconduct overseas would not excuse lawyers from facing disciplinary action here.
Choy Chee Yean, 43, once a high-flying partner in Rajah & Tann, had stolen items from a neighbouring hotel room while on a business trip to Hong Kong in January 2008. He was found with electronic goods, including a mobile phone, charger and an iPod worth a total HK$9,500 (S$1,650), under his bed. His actions were caught on closed-circuit TV camera and, at the police station while undergoing a body search, he also produced a mobile phone SIM card that he said was taken from the room.
Choy pleaded guilty but the Hong Kong district court sentenced him to a year’s jail, suspended for two years as he was suffering from major depression at the time of the offences.
At the tribunal hearing, Choy, defended by Senior Counsel Sundaresh Menon, explained he had pleaded guilty to the offence in Hong Kong as he did not wish to prolong his stay out of fear it would aggravate his medical condition.
But the tribunal noted that he had not produced any evidence on this from his Hong Kong psychiatrists or lawyers. Choy was “clearly aware of the repercussions of pleading guilty”.
“Given that (Choy’s) plea of guilt was unequivocal and he had expressly admitted to the elements of the offence, (his) guilty plea and conviction clearly cannot be taken lightly and disregarded.”
The tribunal, in its report published yesterday, also took issue with the way the question of Choy’s dishonesty in relation to the offence was addressed before the tribunal by his defence and the prosecuting Law Society represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo. Any evidence of dishonesty is expected to be key in deciding the extent of the penalties Choy stands to face if convicted.
The tribunal said that while the evidence provided by his psychiatrist – that he was not a dishonest man – was flawed and weak, the Law Society had also failed to show he was one. It “has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that (Choy) was dishonest at the time of committing the offence.”
Choy has stopped practising since April 2008 and is now a legal executive in the same law firm.
A two-member disciplinary tribunal presided by Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh held the matter was serious enough to go before the court – the highest body to deal with lawyer misconduct – which can either acquit, suspend or strike him off the rolls.
The lawyer pleaded guilty before the tribunal, which decided to refer the matter to the court instead of imposing its own punishments, like a fine or censure. Industry players said the case made clear that misconduct overseas would not excuse lawyers from facing disciplinary action here.
Choy Chee Yean, 43, once a high-flying partner in Rajah & Tann, had stolen items from a neighbouring hotel room while on a business trip to Hong Kong in January 2008. He was found with electronic goods, including a mobile phone, charger and an iPod worth a total HK$9,500 (S$1,650), under his bed. His actions were caught on closed-circuit TV camera and, at the police station while undergoing a body search, he also produced a mobile phone SIM card that he said was taken from the room.
Choy pleaded guilty but the Hong Kong district court sentenced him to a year’s jail, suspended for two years as he was suffering from major depression at the time of the offences.
At the tribunal hearing, Choy, defended by Senior Counsel Sundaresh Menon, explained he had pleaded guilty to the offence in Hong Kong as he did not wish to prolong his stay out of fear it would aggravate his medical condition.
But the tribunal noted that he had not produced any evidence on this from his Hong Kong psychiatrists or lawyers. Choy was “clearly aware of the repercussions of pleading guilty”.
“Given that (Choy’s) plea of guilt was unequivocal and he had expressly admitted to the elements of the offence, (his) guilty plea and conviction clearly cannot be taken lightly and disregarded.”
The tribunal, in its report published yesterday, also took issue with the way the question of Choy’s dishonesty in relation to the offence was addressed before the tribunal by his defence and the prosecuting Law Society represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo. Any evidence of dishonesty is expected to be key in deciding the extent of the penalties Choy stands to face if convicted.
The tribunal said that while the evidence provided by his psychiatrist – that he was not a dishonest man – was flawed and weak, the Law Society had also failed to show he was one. It “has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that (Choy) was dishonest at the time of committing the offence.”
Choy has stopped practising since April 2008 and is now a legal executive in the same law firm.
Lawyer suspended for forging court judgements
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 03 February 2010 0650 hrs
SINGAPORE: He wanted to help his friend resolve his marital problems, but lawyer Dixon Ng did it the wrong way - and got a two-year suspension for his pains.
In January 2006, Ng forged two court judgements to help businessman Vincent Ng placate his wife. The latter was an engineer with his own firm, JCV Consultants, and a director of RJ Crocker Consultants.
The businessman was allegedly involved in an affair with a Shanghainese lounge hostess who had run off with $150,000 belonging to his wife.
Meanwhile, his two companies had filed claims against two other firms for non-payment; Ng was the lawyer in both cases.
Ng wanted to help his friend mollify his wife by giving her the impression that a sum close to what she had lost was coming in. So, the lawyer created two judgements to falsely state that $120,000 was arising from the two claims. In reality, neither of the cases reached the courts.
Two months later, Vincent Ng filed a complaint with the Law Society against Dixon Ng about the draft judgements.
On Tuesday, the lawyer told the Court of Three Judges he had never intended to pass the drafts off as proper judgements and had not attempted to mislead anyone.
"I had a close friend who was being physically abused by his wife. I had to pick him up in the middle of the night in the middle of a road because his wife hit him while driving. And he called me, crying," said Ng.
"I did not do this for any purpose other than to assist my friend, whom I thought was my friend at that time."
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said, while he appreciated that Ng wanted to help, it was a serious offence to create documents. "You did not obtain any monetary benefit but nevertheless, a court document is a court document. Anyone looking at a court document will be influenced by it," he said.
Later, Ng told reporters that his friend had filed the complaint because the two had fallen out over money.
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 03 February 2010 0650 hrs
SINGAPORE: He wanted to help his friend resolve his marital problems, but lawyer Dixon Ng did it the wrong way - and got a two-year suspension for his pains.
In January 2006, Ng forged two court judgements to help businessman Vincent Ng placate his wife. The latter was an engineer with his own firm, JCV Consultants, and a director of RJ Crocker Consultants.
The businessman was allegedly involved in an affair with a Shanghainese lounge hostess who had run off with $150,000 belonging to his wife.
Meanwhile, his two companies had filed claims against two other firms for non-payment; Ng was the lawyer in both cases.
Ng wanted to help his friend mollify his wife by giving her the impression that a sum close to what she had lost was coming in. So, the lawyer created two judgements to falsely state that $120,000 was arising from the two claims. In reality, neither of the cases reached the courts.
Two months later, Vincent Ng filed a complaint with the Law Society against Dixon Ng about the draft judgements.
On Tuesday, the lawyer told the Court of Three Judges he had never intended to pass the drafts off as proper judgements and had not attempted to mislead anyone.
"I had a close friend who was being physically abused by his wife. I had to pick him up in the middle of the night in the middle of a road because his wife hit him while driving. And he called me, crying," said Ng.
"I did not do this for any purpose other than to assist my friend, whom I thought was my friend at that time."
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said, while he appreciated that Ng wanted to help, it was a serious offence to create documents. "You did not obtain any monetary benefit but nevertheless, a court document is a court document. Anyone looking at a court document will be influenced by it," he said.
Later, Ng told reporters that his friend had filed the complaint because the two had fallen out over money.
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Jan 20, 2010
1 more chance to set aside conviction
By Khushwant Singh
Singh was sentenced to three months' jail for helping Mr Koh make a false claim that he was selling his five-room Redhill flat for an inflated price of $490,000 - $100,000 more than the actual sale price. -- ST PHOTO: SHAHRIYA YAHAYA
THE role of a lawyer in filing claims was raised in the High Court on Wednesday, during the hearing of lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh, who was convicted of aiding his client to file a false claim in a property transaction.
The 60-year-old lawyer still has a chance to convince the Court of Appeal to set aside his 2007 conviction for helping flat-owner Koh Sia Siang in a cashback scheme.
The High Court allowed Singh's lawyers, Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock and Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, to raise points of law involving public interest to the Court of Appeal regarding the responsibility of a lawyer when a client files such claims.
The prosecution had also applied to refer certain questions. These include asking the Appellate Court if a lawyer who files a false claim has committed an offence if he was only acting on his client's instructions.
In 2007, Singh was sentenced to three months' jail for helping Mr Koh make a false claim that he was selling his five-room Redhill flat for an inflated price of $490,000 - $100,000 more than the actual sale price.
Maintaining that he did not know about the false claim, Singh appealed in January last year.
Jan 20, 2010
1 more chance to set aside conviction
By Khushwant Singh
Singh was sentenced to three months' jail for helping Mr Koh make a false claim that he was selling his five-room Redhill flat for an inflated price of $490,000 - $100,000 more than the actual sale price. -- ST PHOTO: SHAHRIYA YAHAYA
THE role of a lawyer in filing claims was raised in the High Court on Wednesday, during the hearing of lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh, who was convicted of aiding his client to file a false claim in a property transaction.
The 60-year-old lawyer still has a chance to convince the Court of Appeal to set aside his 2007 conviction for helping flat-owner Koh Sia Siang in a cashback scheme.
The High Court allowed Singh's lawyers, Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock and Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, to raise points of law involving public interest to the Court of Appeal regarding the responsibility of a lawyer when a client files such claims.
The prosecution had also applied to refer certain questions. These include asking the Appellate Court if a lawyer who files a false claim has committed an offence if he was only acting on his client's instructions.
In 2007, Singh was sentenced to three months' jail for helping Mr Koh make a false claim that he was selling his five-room Redhill flat for an inflated price of $490,000 - $100,000 more than the actual sale price.
Maintaining that he did not know about the false claim, Singh appealed in January last year.
Contempt of Court Proceedings against Bachoo Mohan Singh
The AG's application for an order of committal for contempt of court against lawyer,
Mr. Bachoo Mohan Singh was heard on 5 February 2010 before the Honourable
Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong.
The following submissions were made in support of the AG’s application:
1. Mr. Singh made statements in court documents that went beyond fair criticism
of the reasoning of a District Judge who heard the criminal proceedings
against Mr. Singh and an Assistant Registrar who heard Mr. Singh’s
application for a practising certificate, by making personal attacks against
these judicial officers.
2. The statements imputed a lack of impartiality, integrity and competence of the
District Judge and also the Assistant Registrar because the latter is a spouse
of a DPP in the team of prosecutors in the criminal proceedings.
3. The statements are in contempt of court and the purpose of AG’s application
is to highlight the contempt so that the court can adjudicate on and punish the
contempt.
Mr. Singh publicly apologised to the court for making the offensive statements in
court documents which impugned the impartiality, integrity and competence of the
District Judge and the Assistant Registrar.
Mr. Singh also withdrew the offensive statements and undertook to expunge them
from the records of the court.
Judicial Commissioner Chong reprimanded Mr. Singh for making the offensive
remarks, which were inexcusable.
Judicial Commissioner Chong issued a warning to Mr. Singh as he found that Mr.
Singh had taken immediate steps to mitigate his conduct but warned that he would
not be dealt with leniently if the statements were repeated.
The AG's application for an order of committal for contempt of court against lawyer,
Mr. Bachoo Mohan Singh was heard on 5 February 2010 before the Honourable
Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong.
The following submissions were made in support of the AG’s application:
1. Mr. Singh made statements in court documents that went beyond fair criticism
of the reasoning of a District Judge who heard the criminal proceedings
against Mr. Singh and an Assistant Registrar who heard Mr. Singh’s
application for a practising certificate, by making personal attacks against
these judicial officers.
2. The statements imputed a lack of impartiality, integrity and competence of the
District Judge and also the Assistant Registrar because the latter is a spouse
of a DPP in the team of prosecutors in the criminal proceedings.
3. The statements are in contempt of court and the purpose of AG’s application
is to highlight the contempt so that the court can adjudicate on and punish the
contempt.
Mr. Singh publicly apologised to the court for making the offensive statements in
court documents which impugned the impartiality, integrity and competence of the
District Judge and the Assistant Registrar.
Mr. Singh also withdrew the offensive statements and undertook to expunge them
from the records of the court.
Judicial Commissioner Chong reprimanded Mr. Singh for making the offensive
remarks, which were inexcusable.
Judicial Commissioner Chong issued a warning to Mr. Singh as he found that Mr.
Singh had taken immediate steps to mitigate his conduct but warned that he would
not be dealt with leniently if the statements were repeated.
Similar threads
