Who says Francis Seow got fixed cos defending ISA detainee?
-
Who says Francis Seow got fixed because of defending ISA detainee
Marixts?
Subhas Anandan,who also defended the Marixts,still lived
very well and became one of SG top criminal lawyers.
Subhas Anandan was quoted as saying he will not defend
for ISA detainee,but he will defend for traitor.
I dunt know why.May be he knows ISA detainee too well.
He himself spent 9 months under ISA for suspected connection
with gangsters.
Lee Kuan Yew explained to Pope that arrest
not target to Catholic
Do u think LKY dare to lie to Pope?
read below.
Why did SG offend US by accusing US Diplomat
interfering SG domestic affairs
In the recent ISD 60th anniversary closed door dinner,
LHL reminded SG people the incident of
American diplomat based in Singapore, Mr Hank Hendrickson, who interfered in Singapore politics by asking then Law Society president Francis Seow to lead a team of lawyers to contest the 1988 elections.
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/legalnews/58646.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss
US has been SG major trading partners for many years.
At the time of Seow arrest,SG just recovered from recession.
This was very stupied if SG framed up Hank Hendrickson.
SDP said:
In the same episode, the ISA was also used on Mr Francis Seow, the former Law Society president and solicitor general, who was representing some of the detainees. At his creative best, Mr Lee accused Mr Seow of colluding with a US diplomat to set up an opposition to contest the PAP...
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/vantage/1062-pap-governement-invokes-the-spectre-of-isa
sources---http://www.pmo.gov.sg/News/links to old documents ceased.
above---Subhas Anandan in a recent ST interview
nnn
kk
jj
bbn
hhhh
-
Boredom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Boring" and "Bored" redirect here. For other uses, see Boring (disambiguation) and Bored (disambiguation).Boredom is an emotional state experienced during periods of lack of activities or when individuals are uninterested in the activities surrounding them.
Etymology
The first record of the word boredom is in the novel Bleak House by Charles Dickens, written in 1852[1], in which it appears six times, although the expression to be a bore had been used in the sense of "to be tiresome or dull" since 1768[2].
Psychology
Boredom has been defined by C. D. Fisher in terms of its central psychological processes: “an unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on the current activity.”[3] M. R. Leary and others define boredom similarly, and somewhat more succinctly, as “an affective experience associated with cognitive attentional processes.”[4] These definitions make it clear that boredom arises not from a lack of things to do but from the inability to latch onto any specific activity. Nothing engages us, despite an often profound desire for engagement.
There appear to be three general types of boredom, all of which involve problems of engagement of attention. These include times when we are prevented from engaging in something, when we are forced to engage in some unwanted activity, or when we are simply unable, for no apparent reason, to maintain engagement in any activity or spectacle.[5]
An important psychological construct is that of boredom proneness; a tendency to experience boredom of all types. This is typically assessed by the Boredom Proneness Scale.[6] Consistent with the definition provided above, recent research has found that boredom proneness is clearly and consistently associated with failures of attention.[7] Boredom and boredom proneness are both theoretically and empirically linked to depression and depressive symptoms.[8][9][10] Nonetheless, boredom proneness has been found to be as strongly correlated with attentional lapses as with depression.[11]
Although boredom is often viewed as a trivial and mild irritant, proneness to boredom has been linked to a very diverse range of possible psychological, physical, educational, and social problems.
Philosophy
Boredom is a condition characterized by perception of one's environment as dull, tedious, and lacking in stimulation. This can result from leisure and a lack of aesthetic interests. Labor, however, and even art may be alienated and passive, or immersed in tedium (see Marx's theory of alienation). There is an inherent anxiety in boredom; people will expend considerable effort to prevent or remedy it, yet in many circumstances, it is accepted as suffering to be endured. Common passive ways to escape boredom are to sleep or to think creative thoughts (daydream). Typical active solutions consist in an intentional activity of some sort, often something new, as familiarity and repetition lead to the tedious.
Boredom also plays a role in existentialist thought. In contexts where one is confined, spatially or otherwise, boredom may be met with various religious activities, not because religion would want to associate itself with tedium, but rather, partly because boredom may be taken as the essential human condition, to which God, wisdom, or morality are the ultimate answers. Boredom is in fact taken in this sense by virtually all existentialist philosophers as well as by Schopenhauer. Heidegger wrote about boredom in two texts available in English, in the 1929/30 semester lecture course The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, and again in the essay What is Metaphysics? published in the same year. In the lecture, Heidegger included about 100 pages on boredom, probably the most extensive philosophical treatment ever of the subject. He focused on waiting at train stations in particular as a major context of boredom.[12] In Kierkegaard's remark in Either/Or, that "patience cannot be depicted" visually, there is a sense that any immediate moment of life may be fundamentally tedious.
Without stimulus or focus, the individual is confronted with nothingness, the meaninglessness of existence, and experiences existential anxiety. Heidegger states this idea nicely: "Profound boredom, drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling fog, removes all things and men and oneself along with it into a remarkable indifference. This boredom reveals being as a whole."[13]
Arthur Schopenhauer used the existence of boredom in an attempt to prove the vanity of human existence, stating, "...for if life, in the desire for which our essence and existence consists, possessed in itself a positive value and real content, there would be no such thing as boredom: mere existence would fulfil and satisfy us."[14]
Erich Fromm and other similar thinkers of critical theory speak of bourgeois society in terms similar to boredom, and Fromm mentions sex and the automobile as fundamental outlets of postmodern boredom.
Above and beyond taste and character, the universal case of boredom consists in any instance of waiting, as Heidegger noted, such as in line, for someone else to arrive or finish a task, or while one is travelling.
Boredom, however, may also increase as travel becomes more convenient, as the vehicle may become more like the windowless monad in Leibniz's monadology. The automobile requires fast reflexes, making its operator busy and hence, perhaps for other reasons as well, making the ride more tedious despite being over sooner.
Causes and effects
Although it has not been widely studied, research on boredom suggests that boredom is a major factor impacting diverse areas of a person's life. People ranked low on a boredom-proneness scale were found to have better performance in a wide variety of aspects of their lives, including career, education, and autonomy.[15]
Boredom can be a symptom of clinical depression. Boredom can be a form of learned helplessness, a phenomenon closely related to depression. Some philosophies of parenting propose that if children are raised in an environment devoid of stimuli, and are not allowed or encouraged to interact with their environment, they will fail to develop the mental capacities to do so.
The Unsmiling Tsarevna (Nesmeyana), by Viktor Vasnetsov
In a learning environment, a common cause of boredom is lack of understanding; for instance, if one is not following or connecting to the material in a class or lecture, it will usually seem boring. However, the opposite can also be true; something that is too easily understood, simple or transparent, can also be boring. Boredom is often inversely related to learning, and in school it may be a sign that a student is not challenged enough, or too challenged. An activity that is predictable to the students is likely to bore them.[16]
Boredom has been studied as being related to drug abuse among teens.[17]
Boredom has been proposed as a cause of pathological gambling behavior. A study found results consistent with the hypothesis that pathological gamblers seek stimulation to avoid states of boredom and depression.[18]
Popular culture and the arts
In Chapter 18 of the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) it is written; "The only horrible thing in the world is ennui, Dorian. That is the one sin for which there is no forgiveness".
John Sebastian, Iggy Pop, the Deftones, Buzzcocks, and Blink-182 have all written songs with boredom mentioned in the title. Other songs about boredom and activities people turn to when bored include Green Day's song "Longview", System of a Down's "Lonely Day", and Bloodhound Gang's "Mope".
Douglas Adams depicted a robot named Marvin the Paranoid Android whose boredom appeared to be the defining trait of his existence in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
-
WHO SAYS LIONNOISY USE CLONES IN SGFORUMS?
THE PROOF IS HERE
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
To "flame wars" and "phishing" we can now add "sock puppet." A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry.
When Lee Siegel began blogging for The New Republic, he found, as many others have, that Internet posters tend to be fairly outspoken — and a good number of the posters on the blog were harshly critical. An exception was ''sprezzatura,'' who regularly offered extravagant praise. After Mr. Siegel was criticized for his writing about Jon Stewart, host of ''The Daily Show,'' sprezzatura wrote: ''Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.'' A reader charged that sprezzatura was in fact Mr. Siegel, but sprezzatura denied it.
The reader turned out to be right. ...
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
I cant believe there are so many killings
in the above links !!!
More excited than Holloywood movies!!
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Why did u check IP and English of forumers?
i just know my acct has been hijacked and u post it!!
It seems u are faster than me?Looks so strange!!
Looks like it is a cyber crime and /or frame up.
Hv anyone(u know who i mean) hacked into my e mails and computers ?
Do i have to hire armed guards to stay outside my
pigeon hole?
I am seeking helps from ISD,CIA,FBI,MI 5 and 6,
PRC Kong Ang, etc to check who hijack my acct
and make me appearing as ''makepeace'' after
i click submit.How safe in this forum??
I will buy you Ya Kun coffee if your info can lead to
catch the criminal,
Forums owners and mods are hereby notified my formal ,written and distressing complaints to cyber crimes!!
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
oh it is good.Then can help me saving time to see counsellors How to get rid of computers addicts!!bye
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
-
Dr Francis Seow was fixed by the asspot because public money grabbing dishonorable people will fix anyone to hold on to power.....
-
Finally they can't find any crimes to prosecute him, they conjured up some tax evasion charge and convicted him in absentia.
Francis Seow is a Singapore-born political dissident who is in exile from Singapore after lawsuits by the former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew. He was educated at Saint Joseph's Institution in Singapore and at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in London. Seow is currently a United States citizen, and a University Fellow based in the Department of Asian Studies at Harvard University.
Life
Seow joined the Singapore Legal Service in 1956 and rose through the ranks to become Solicitor-General in 1969, a position he held until 1971. During his career he served under the administration of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and was appointed senior counsel to a Commission of Inquiry in the Secondary IV examination boycott by Chinese students in 1963 prior to Singapore's entry into Malaysia. For his work, Seow was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) Medal. He eventually left public service and entered into private law practice in 1972.
He was later suspended from law practice for 12 months by Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin for breach of an undertaking given on behalf of his junior law partner to the Attorney-General while in private practice. Nonetheless, he was later elected a member of the Council of the Law Society in 1976 and eventually became its President in 1986.
His new appointment led to a falling out with Lee Kuan Yew after he became embroiled in the politics surrounding the role of the Law Society. He had envisaged a restoration of the role of the Law Society to, inter alia, comment on legislation that the government was then churning out without any meaningful parliamentary debate, a role which Prime Minister Lee took especial exception to. In the result, Prime Minister Lee caused special legislation to be passed depriving the Law Society, inter alia, of any powers to comment on any legislation unless the government specifically asks the Law Society for its comments. He ran for the Parliament of Singapore as part of the Workers' Party team that contested the Eunos Group Representation Constituency in the 1988 Singapore general election. However, his team managed to secure 49.11% of valid votes, "losing marginally" to the PAP stronghold.
Macabre political intrigues followed the post-election excitement. Just before the election, he was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act for 72 days, accused of having received funds from the United States and advice for the purpose of promoting democracy in Singapore. According to his account, he was subjected to torture, including sleep deprivation and intense cold air-conditioning. During the elections, he was criticised as being an American stooge. Later, while awaiting trial for alleged tax evasion, he left the country and was convicted in absentia. These events are alleged by many to have been politically motivated, and part of a pattern of lawsuits and criminal proceedings against dissenters in Singapore. Despite his exile he has spoken at events organized by Singapore student societies in universities outside of Singapore.
Writings
Francis Seow tells his story in the semi-autobiographical To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew's prison. In the book, Seow recounts his career in the legal service and his personal experience of being detained by the Internal Security Department. He also accuses the government of Singapore of authoritarianism and human rights abuses under Lee Kuan Yew. The book also contains a foreword by former Singapore President Devan Nair that is equally critical of the Singapore government. Since then Seow has written another book, The Media Enthralled, which describes how he believes the Singapore government undermined freedom of the media and turned them into pro-government mouthpieces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Seow
-
-
who is francis seow??? siao liao
-
From the hot responses,i know this topics save u guys from
the current bad markets.
Life is not all about money.
There are far more important things like democracy and freedom.
Pl just help to promote the two things i mention in your
CURRENT own country,the country which give u the citizenship.
Not your former country and your future country.
But dunt be the 12 th players ,openly,in any football match .Full Stop.
Dunt interfer with other countries' politics.
i dunt say Spy activities is not ok.
How American feel if SG gavaman ''plant'' a candidate for next
US Presidential election?If we spend say US$2 billion,
i think we can have a lot of lobbying power.
In this down market,US$ 2 billion can buy thousand of lobbists
,if not Senators and Congress wo/men ,to run up and down
many times in Capitol Hill.
US and ''neighbouring intelligence service'' interference in Singapore's domestic politics
U guys may be too busy playing games or chasing girls or guys.
Lets review the black room activities by US and others:
1.
http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=66&secid=48
2nd Reading Speech by Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng
Date of Parliament Sitting: 22 May 2000Political Donations Bill
In 1959, a Government Commission of Inquiry revealed that two sums of money totalling $700,000 were transferred from New York to Mr Chew Swee Kee, then Education Minister from the Singapore People's Alliance, the ruling party led by Mr Lim Yew Hock, then Chief Minister.
2.
Then in 1976, the Secretary-General of the People's Front, Mr Leong Mun Kwai, who is still around today, revealed during Police's investigations on the misappropriation of the People's Front's funds, that he was given financial assistance and made use of by a neighbouring intelligence service in a "black operation" against the interests of Singapore.
3.
A more recent case was in 1988, when a US diplomat interfered in Singapore's domestic politics. The diplomat actively cultivated Mr Francis Seow. Mr Francis Seow was advised by the diplomat how to establish a more effective opposition in Parliament and to set about seriously to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. This is gross interference in Singapore's domestic politics.
In the recent ISD 60th anniversary closed door dinner,Sept 2008,
PM LHL reminded SG people the incident of
American diplomat based in Singapore, Mr Hank Hendrickson, who interfered in Singapore politics by asking then Law Society president Francis Seow to lead a team of lawyers to contest the 1988 elections.
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/legalnews/58646.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss
US has been SG major trading partners for many years.
At the time of Seow arrest,SG just recovered from 1985/86 recession.
This was very stupied if SG framed up Hank Hendrickson.
kkkk
-
I am interested to note the lifes of Subhas Anandan,Gopalan Nair
and Francis Seow.All 3 are lawyers.Anandan and Seow were detained
under ISA for different reasons,9 months and 2 and half months respectively.
The later 2 left SG after ''politics'' incidents.
Many will think Seow and Nair got into troubles because of
jumping into the pot of politics.Well.U be the Judge.
How about Chiam?He is also a lawyer and raise up the family
by practising laws.Now he is in his 70's and has not spent a day
in jail!!
I respected Anandan.He claimed he was assused wrongly.
But he never thought of leaving the country.
He just do his best and is well respected ,founder and Chairman of SG Crimial Lawyers Association.
He just completed a book''The Best I Could.''
http://www.khattarwong.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=news&id=119#
Legal eagle Subhas Anandan, 60, may not lace up in a literal fashion, but he does have first-hand knowledge of the remand system: In 1976, when he was a young lawyer, he was accused of being the leader of a secret society called the Black Eagles, and was subsequently thrown into Queenstown Remand Prison without trial.
,,,,,,,,
From prisoner to defender
RECALLING his stint in remand prison in 1976, Mr Anandan says that his accusers were 'enemies' jealous of the fact that he was at the time the youngest president ever elected by his temple, Holy Tree Sri Balasubramaniam Temple in Yishun. They used the fact that he often mediated between warring gangsters to finger him as a secret society kingpin.'It was all twisted to show that I was a top gangster. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau got involved to investigate, and it cleared me, of course. If it had not cleared me, I could not practise law now,' says Mr Anandan, who was defended by the late David Marshall and Leo Fernando, who represented him for free after hearing about his case through mutual acquaintances.
mmm
-
Has Francis Seow been a Fellow in Harvard Laws School?
I read a letter from then SG Ambassdor to US,SR Nathan,
wrote to US press (Nathan currentlySG President),
that Seow was not a Fellow in Harvard Laws School.
So,can u guys,Friends of Francis Seow ,tell me when did
Seow get appointed as Fellow or other post in Harvard?
Here is his answer in 2003.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031019fs.htm
Q. Are you attached to any organisation?
A. I am not quite sure to what you are referring. If you mean whether I am still with Harvard Law School, the answer is no.
ll
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Finally they can't find any crimes to prosecute him, they conjured up some tax evasion charge and convicted him in absentia.
Francis Seow is a Singapore-born political dissident who is in exile from Singapore after lawsuits by the former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew. He was educated at Saint Joseph's Institution in Singapore and at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in London. Seow is currently a United States citizen, and a University Fellow based in the Department of Asian Studies at Harvard University.
Where is this Department of Asian Studies at Harvard University.?
i am only able to get East Asian Legal Studies,Harvard Law School.
Sorry i am very strict in details and facts.
Manu of u wrote without vertifying.Materials appear in English
and from famous U dunt gurantee true.
oh i think i get it.
If it is true:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ftsview.htm
Francis T. Seow,
Visiting Fellow, East Asian Legal Studies
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. USAhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/eals/
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/f.html
can u give me evidences that HE was there.
I still remember SR Nathan ,then Ambassdor to US,
wrote to US press that Seow
was not a Visiting Fellow in Harvard Law School.
mmm
-
it is nice to read how US press report Marixts arrests:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=Francis+T.+Seow+%2B+Visiting+Fellow&srchst=cse
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DA1231F93BA35755C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=Francis%20T.%20Seow%20+%20Visiting%20Fellow&st=cse
or search here by Francis T Seow
http://query.nytimes.com/search/
-
The 1987 detentions
Most people familiar with the ISA detentions of 1987 – of Francis Seow, Vincent Cheng and others – would have grave reservations as to how credible the charges were. Francis Seow, the former Solicitor General, has written about his experiences and what he thinks were the government's motives: that of intimidating political challengers. It is noteworthy that Seow's books are not available in Singapore.
In them, he has described the Internal Security Department's methods of interrogation: sleep deprivation, extreme cold and information deprivation. The aim was to extract confessions and incriminations of others. One could guess that the US is probably doing likewise with their al Qaeda detainees, and when one is trying to crack a shadowy network, this kind of information gathering, rather than looking for hard evidence, may be all we have to go by. But if the authority's motive is to "frame" others, it's all too easy to fabricate incriminating confessions by these same coercive means.
Malaysia too has an Internal Security Act very similar to ours. In 1999, it was used by Prime Minister Mahathir to detain Deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim. Most Malaysians, except diehard Mahathir loyalists, are convinced that this was intended to eliminate Anwar as a political rival.
The other equally troubling aspect of preventive detention, in Singapore's case, is that it can be indefinite. Chia Thye Poh [1] was detained for 23 years till released in 1989. He had been accused of being a communist agent. 23 years is virtually a lifetime. What if the accusations had been ill-founded?
-
Singapore's vulnerable risk-free democracy
Page 2 of 9
When the PAP government came into power in 1959, the main threat was communism. That threat persisted till the end of the Cold War. In the articles by Rerceretnam and Cheong in this volume, we see that as late as 1987, Singaporeans were arrested on allegations of being communists. Without a trial brought against the supposed perpetrators of a ?Marxist conspiracy?, the plot was never judicially proven by the authorities. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is another highly undemocratic instrument that can be used to control legitimate political opposition - the ISA assumes that the arrested person is guilty even before they are tried. Francis Seow and Chia Thye Poh, are two people who have suffered from this kind of suppression: they were arrested under the ISA because it was supposed that they constituted a serious threat to Singapore (see Seow 1994).
Another big threat to Singaporean society, according to the PAP, is racial and religious unrests. Singapore experienced racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s. The Religious Harmony Act of 1990 sought to prevent people from spoiling the religious calm of the city-state. This agenda is reflected in Singapore?s electoral system, where most members of Parliament (MPs) are grouped together for election purposes in Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs). Each GRC covers a bigger electoral division and is represented by three to six MPs. At least one of the MPs in the group representing a GRC must belong to a minority racial community, that is a non-Chinese (Ooi 1998). Through these means the PAP has seized the high moral ground and any challenge to its racial and religious policies will be attacked as an invitation to racial and religious hatred and instability. Opposition members have sometimes been framed as racist and grave threats to Singapore?s racial harmony. A popular opposition figure, Tang Liang Hong, for instance, was accused of being a ?Chinese chauvinist? in the 1997 general election (Jeyaratnam 2003). In the run-up to the 2006 general election, the Workers? Party was accused of trying to destabilise Singapore?s multi-cultural harmony on the basis of its election manifesto. The party had suggested that the racial quota that ensured a particular racial mix in public housing estates be removed (Workers? Party 2006). This policy suggestion was based on any premise other than destroying racial harmony; rather it recognised that people should be free to purchase flats where they want and not be restrained by their ethnicity. The safe option is for opposition parties to avoid all references to any emotive issues about race and religion, even when their policy reforms seek to improve racial harmony and equity. The mere mention of these issues, however, opens them up to attack regardless of their motives. The result is that typically, Singapore?s policies on race and religion are never challenged. It is ironic that after more than 45 years of social engineering, the PAP government is convinced that it has not been successful in creating a population mature enough to freely discuss racial and religious issues in a democratic manner.
The visual images from the attacks of 11 September 2001 have focused the attention of the world against terrorism. Singapore is no exception. Singapore has a long history of feeling insecure of itself and in the region, but now a new preoccupation with Islamic extremism has emerged, strengthened perceptions of threats to stability. Located in the Malay World, Singapore is sandwiched between Indonesia - the world?s largest Muslim country - and Malaysia where the ethic Malays or bumiputera represent some 60 per cent of the population. As discussed by Cheong in this volume, 9/11 has increased the hand of authoritarianism in Singapore. The government has acquired more powers to tackle this new threat with little concern for accountability or transparency.
The Singapore government?s construction of new forms of authoritarian control enables it to benefit politically even from viruses. In 2003, the Singaporean economy nose dived, as the country and region experienced the negative impact of SARS. The current on-going bird flu outbreaks around the world are also threatening Singapore?s economy. While these ?natural? threats have been handled well by the PAP government, these incidences are also public relations opportunities, as the articles by Jin et al. and Woodier in this volume show. The PAP has presented itself as the only party that can solve the country?s problems, including viral invasions. Given the media?s reluctance to report any negative stories about the government, the general political atmosphere under the PAP government feels like a perpetual election campaign for the party.
Besides communism, racial unrests, terrorism and health hazards, another problem that is projected as a perpetual threat to Singapore is the economy?s vulnerability. As a country with no natural resources and heavily dependent on international trade and commerce, Singapore is more immediately affected by the troughs and peaks of the global economy. In the last ten years, Singapore?s economy suffered adversely from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the burst of the dotcom bubble, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and SARS. At the same time, the PAP government has embarked on a Singapore Inc. strategy to make Singapore a bigger player in the global economy (Low & Johnston 2001). Temasek Holding, an investment vehicle of the Singapore government, has been acquiring assets and companies around the world as part of a diversification strategy to minimise Singapore?s dependence on the domestic economy. Many of Singapore?s biggest companies, such as Singapore Airlines and the DBS Bank, are in Temasek?s portfolio. With the constant reminder of Singapore?s economic vulnerability, it is difficult for many Singaporeans to conceive of an alternative to PAP?s successful management of the economy.
Occasionally, the PAP and the government are embroiled in bad news. For instance, Choo Wee Khiang resigned as an PAP MP after he was found guilty of cheating in 1999. He was sentenced to two week jail and a fine (Agence France-Presse, 7 June 1999). Choo is not the first or last case. PAP minister, Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide in 1987 because he was allegedly corrupt (Sydney Morning Herald, 27 March 1987). These cases show that the PAP is not above the law, and not all their members are honest. Recently, the National Kidney Foundation ? a high profile, lauded charity ? was pushed into the news by the local newspapers, The Straits Times. The Chief Executive Officer of the charity, T.T. Durai, unsuccessfully sued the newspapers for libel. The Straits Times reported that donated monies were not properly used, and the allegations were proven to be true. The wife of former Prime Minister and current Senior Minister, Mrs Goh Chok Tong was the patron of the charity. The Minister of Health had to diffuse the public outcry by introducing more mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in all charities. Bad publicity of this kind is rare for the PAP government compared to the large amount of negative publicity some opposition figures receive (see Gomez?s article in this volume).
-
US Embassy deined the charge that Mr Hank Hendrickson
interfered with SG politics.But did US State Dept deny the charge?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D61138F93BA35756C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&scp=4&sq=Francis%20T%20Seow&st=cse
Singapore Asks Removal of U.S. Envoy
LEAD: The Government of Singapore today accused an American diplomat of interfering in its domestic affairs and asked Washington to withdraw the envoy.
-
Some fifty years after independence, and as a result of living under a one party authoritarian system, any Singaporeans have come to believe that the PAP represents the only feasible and workable government for Singapore. Singapore has to be vigilant against communist plots, racial and religious instability, terrorism, health epidemics and its economic vulnerability. It is assumed that only the PAP is capable of delivering good results which underpin domestic stability while simultaneously providing for economic growth and increased living standards. The world economy has also come to recognise Singapore as one of the most competitive economies and attribute this to the PAP. In these circumstances, a decrease in support for the PAP could be construed as the start of instability in Singapore. The bulk of domestic and international opinion seems to be convinced that Singapore?s economic successes are directly attributable to the PAP and that the safest option is not to mess with a well functioning system. But not all Singaporeans are convinced that PAP, and the authoritarianism on which it depends, is the only answer.
Justifying the one-party system: casting the opposition parties as risky
As part of the political game, the PAP needs to cripple its political challengers ? the opposition. The PAP is using a three-pronged approach to frame the opposition as ?risky? in Singaporean politics. With the first prong, it offers a successful development model for Singaporeans. As the discussion above shows, the PAP has defined the threats that Singapore faces and persuaded many that it is the only party that can mount an adequate response to them. The PAP argues that opposition parties are a risk, that they do not have the capacity to deal with these manifold threats, or they even question that such threats exist.
With the second prong, the PAP government attempts to convince Singaporeans that they do not need a functioning multi-party democracy. Despite this it is ironic to note that Singapore has more than twenty registered political parties. Most of these parties, however, do not represent genuine sectional interests - many of them are formed simply at election times. Any suggestion that Singapore should head in the direction of a genuinely more vibrant multi-party democracy continues to be rejected by the PAP on the pretext that Singapore has established its own, unique political system. It is said that a multi-party democracy is untenable in a small country like Singapore. In contrasting to other Asian countries that are experimenting with democracy (eg the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia), the PAP government argues that Singapore cannot afford the inconveniences and inefficiencies of democracy. Furthermore, the PAP likes to project Singapore as being Asian and conservative. The political system reflects the values that Singaporeans hold, it is said; in such an ?Asian values system? the conflicts and turmoils of other democratic models are neither necessary nor desirable. And under the pretext of maintaining good political order, the Singapore opposition faces structural impediments to communicating with its potential electorate. In his article in this volume, Gomez shows how the ruling party has tried to block free speech options to opposition parties. The lack of fair access to voters makes it difficult for opponents to convincingly challenge the PAP government. Instead, the opposition parties suffer from a large amount of negative publicity that they cannot overcome unless alternative communication avenues are opened up. For instance in the run up to the 2006 general elections, the PAP government announced that podcasting and vodcasting will not be allowed for campaigning. These are both new technologies that several opposition parties and individual politicians had begun to develop and use to good effect (The Straits Times, 4 April 2006). Such barriers to communication are not healthy for the growth of a multi-party democracy but according to the PAP, Singaporeans do not need such as system.
With the third prong, the PAP tries to convince Singaporeans that the Opposition is not capable of playing even the role of a good opposition, instead the PAP claims that it can function as its own opposition. In the 2006 general election, the PAP attempted to win back the only two opposition wards (out of a total of 83 wards). Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong suggested that if the PAP?s candidates should win back the Potong Pasir and Hougang constituencies, the candidates could ?play opposition? in Parliament. Goh suggested that the PAP party whip could be lifted specially for them, that is they would be allowed to go against party-line in Parliament (The Straits Times, 27 March 2006). In another incident, a Straits Times journalist Peh Shing Huei was bemused that new PAP candidates for the 2006 general election constantly highlighted their willingness to challenge the official party line, as they tried to prove their ?rebel credentials? (The Straits Times, 29 March 2006). The PAP is essentially trying to convince the electorate that the opposition is irrelevant in Singapore; the PAP can do the job of the opposition itself, in addition to acting as a wise government
To sum up, the PAP is offering Singaporeans a no-risk approach to parliamentary democracy by arguing that it alone can represent all Singaporeans as both the government and opposition and in a manner that poses no risk to the country. Such a view, however, is controversial, unwise and unsustainable to people who believe that the best way of ensuring the effective functioning of a democracy is to set up appropriate institutions for it. . Such institutions need to include the full complement of democratic mechanisms and processes: the separation of the legislative from the executive and judiciary, the countervailing powers of lobbies and opposition parties, and accountability and transparency in all government business. As things stand today, the whole political and economic system hinges on the capacities and successes of the PAP. Apart from constituting an unwarrantably, authoritarian system, there is also the risk that in the long run Singapore will be left with no tenable political alternatives if something should go horribly wrong with the PAP and the system it has built up. In the short run, the so called ?Singaporean model? has ensured the negation of democracy in Singapore.
The papers in this volume address many of these issues. This published work began as part of the Singapore Studies Project which we describe next.
-
wha lau, history class hor.
-
The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore
BY Francis T. Seow, former solicitor general of Singapore.
This is the text of a lecture given in Sydney, Australia in early 1997.IN the past decade Singapore, along with the other newly industrialising countries of Asia, has been touted as an alternative model of economic development. Its high standard of living, measured in economic terms, and freedom from foreign debt, among other aspects, has been envied by less fortunate nations. More recently, features of Singapore society have been cited with approval by overseas commentators -- its law and order regime, compulsory savings, maintenance of parents legislation to compel children to look after their aged parents, to name a few. While these may be desirable, the manner of their implementation depends on certain anti-democratic and authoritarian structures and institutions. Today, I intend to look at one of these - the judicial institutions.
I was astounded when my attention was first drawn to an October 1993 Straits Times banner-headlines, Singapore's legal system rated best in world: Full confidence that justice will be fast and fair. It was, the newspaper crowed, "the most authoritative report on competitiveness of selected developed and developing economies."
The survey was purportedly carried out worldwide among 18,000 business executives, who had expressed "full confidence in the ability of Singapore's judicial system to mete out justice in society." Out of 37 named countries, Singapore scored top place, Australia shared seventh place with Ireland, Malaysia fifteenth place, while the United States scored seventeenth place, and the United Kingdom, a sad and distant nineteenth place. The authority for this conclusion was the 1993 World Competitiveness Report, published by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. This was the first time Singapore had scored top marks. Hence, the delirious headlines. As it seemed probable the World Economic Forum (WEF) knew something, which I did not, I wrote to it.
I inquired the criteria used, and of the 18,000 persons purportedly surveyed, how many have had personal experience with Singapore's judicial system? And, if so, in what capacity and over what matter? Were they represented by any local and/or foreign lawyers? Whether the survey included any English QCs, especially those who had appeared before the Singapore courts?... Any American lawyers or academics who had observed legal proceedings in Singapore? And whether the survey included newspapermen.
WEF explained that "... three criteria ... [had] been used to assess the ranking of the countries for ‘Justice and Security.’"
The three criteria were:
(1) serious crime: number of murders, violent crimes or armed robberies reported per 100,000 inhabitants;
(2) security, and
(3) justice.Of the three criteria, the third is germane to our discussion. I found its methodology flawed. Respondents were simply asked a bald question whether they had or had not full confidence in the fair administration of justice in Singapore -- Answer: Yes or No. No Singapore lawyers or litigants were apparently surveyed. How could these international business executives, ensconced in their air-conditioned executive suites, with little or no personal experience of Singapore's legal system, possibly give valued conclusions on the administration of justice in Singapore?
True picture:
NOW to draw aside the curtain, to show you the true picture. Some history is needed to show how the legal system was systematically undermined by the prime minister after the People’s Action Party (PAP), came into power in June 1959. The senior crown counsel, Ahmad Ibrahim, was promoted over the solicitor general, A.V. Winslow, to the top office of attorney general. Ahmad Ibrahim was a Muslim, and his presence was useful to the prime minister, whose political objectives included merger with Malaya. A.V. Winslow, on the other hand, was a Ceylon Tamil, the first Singaporean in the colonial legal service to reach its topmost rung. The prime minister, however, saw him as too closely tied to the old colonial administration, and therefore politically unreliable. Several years later, Winslow was elevated to the high court bench but, significantly, was never assigned to try sensitive cases.Meanwhile, Ahmad Ibrahim -- who had become a political liability but whose tenure of office was protected under the constitution -- was sent overseas as ambassador to the United Arab Republic. This lateral promotion is reminiscent of the practice of Chinese emperors getting rid of awkward officials by sending them out to govern the far-flung provinces.
Another significant move was the designation of Justice Wee Chong Jin -- a relatively recent recruit from the bar -- as chief justice over the more experienced acting incumbent. Like Winslow, he was also identified with the old order. Wee's political acuity and industry had recommended themselves to the prime minister, who once again ignored the claims of seniority and experience to further his political agenda.
Sudden transfer:
THE sudden transfer in 1986 of senior district judge, Michael Khoo -- one of the ablest judges to grace the subordinate court bench -- to the attorney general's chambers following his acquittal of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, an opposition MP, and, more significantly, the prime minister's political bêtre noire, (Among the many colourful epithets were: "hustler", "skunk", "mangy dog", "charlatan", and "political riff-raff". Hansard, Parliamentary debates, March 19, 1986, cols. 688-689, 720.) on all politically-inspired charges, save one, of financial impropriety, engendered much controversy. From being the respected head of the subordinate judiciary, Khoo overnight became a mere digit within the attorney general's chambers.The prosecution appealed the acquittal. The chief justice allowed the appeal with the unusual instruction for it to be retried before another district judge. Jeyaretnam's application for the retrial to be heard before a high court judge to enable him to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council -- Singapore’s ultimate court of appeal in London -- was refused. At the re-trial, he was predictably found guilty, and convicted. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was heard by Justice Lai Kew Chai, who dismissed his appeal, and varied the sentence to month’s imprisonment, plus a fine, which was high enough to disqualify him from sitting in parliament.
Meanwhile, Jeyaretnam alleged in parliament that Khoo's transfer had caused "public disquiet," implying that it had been motivated by political considerations, which he expanded to include both the chief justice and the attorney general, as being "beholden" to the prime minister for having extended their respective appointments beyond their legal retirement age. In a rancorous parliamentary debate, it emerged that Khoo's transfer was not a "routine departmental transfer," as claimed by the prime minister. In the result, Jeyaretnam was expelled from parliament, and disbarred from law practice.
Jeyaretnam appealed the disbarment to the privy council, which, in allowing the appeal, roundly castigated the chief justice and the Singapore courts for their legal reasoning. It was a telling indictment of Singapore’s courts. The privy council held that two innocent persons had suffered a grievous injustice -- fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty.
This was the same privy council, which the prime minister had earlier praised as the acme of Singapore's judicial independence, when he cautioned future PAP governments against interfering with its status in the judicial infrastructure:
"I can only express the hope that faith in the judicial system will never be diminished, and I am sure it will not, so long as we allow a review of the judicial processes that takes place here in some other tribunal where obviously undue influence cannot be brought to bear. As long as governments are wise enough to leave alone the rights of appeal to some superior body outside Singapore, then there must be a higher degree of confidence in the integrity of our judicial process. This is most important. (Author's underlining)" Lee Kuan Yew in parliament, March 15, 1967.
This sentiment was also echoed by the minister for law, S. Jayakumar, who -- in a blunt reference to Jeyaretnam's series of legal failures, dismissed his remarks as the "jaundiced view of a person who has not had satisfaction in the courts as he would have liked" -- asked: "How many countries are there in the world that he can refer to where there are appeals to the privy council in criminal and civil cases ... other than Singapore? That is the litmus test of our judicial system's independence."
The judgment of the privy council reflected severely on the integrity of the Singapore judiciary -- and was seen by many as solemn confirmation of their own unspoken misgivings about its independence. Any other government -- to use an Americanism -- would have rolled with the punch but this was a government whose sensitivity to criticism was proverbial. As long as the privy council handed down judgments supportive of the prime minister and his government, its status at the apex of Singapore’s judicial infrastructure was inviolable. With that crucial decision, the privy council sealed its own doom. The minister for law, ignoring his previous rhetoric, moved in parliament for the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council decrying it as being "interventionist" and "out of touch" with local conditions -- a decrial questionable both in law and in taste.
Asked about the abolition of the privy council, Goh Chok Tong -- who had succeeded to the premiership in 1990 -- responded that, in allowing Jeyaretnam's appeal against his disbarment, the privy council had "gone outside its prescribed role" and was "playing politics." It was a disgraceful statement, as well as wilful contempt of Singapore's own superior court, but as Juvenal -- the Roman satirist -- once said: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?) Implicit in Goh's contemptible statement was that the PAP government could no longer afford the hard political currency of a free and independent court. The Jeyaretnam case is unsurpassed for the pathetic attempts by the Singapore courts to stretch the law to fit the facts. It highlights the grotesque contortions the politically corrupt judiciary went through to rid a political irritant to the prime minister and his government. It demonstrates the misuse of the law in advancing the agenda and interests of the ruling political party.
Government spin:THE Singapore government often puts a spin on the Jeyaretnam judgment claiming that the privy council had no jurisdiction over the convictions insinuating that it was out of line in making that statement, as the ‘party most affected -- Singapore’s public prosecutor -- was not heard on the matter.’ That is only half of the truth. What it failed to disclose is that the public prosecutor was asked whether he wished to be heard. But the public prosecutor chose not to appear. An obiter dicta -- and, more especially that of the privy council -- would normally have been sufficient to propel a government to correct an obvious injustice -- but this was no ordinary case.
To counter public perception that the judiciary was inclined towards the executive, the chief justice was perforce to publicly address this matter:
It is our responsibility to let there be no shadow of doubt whatsoever that we are committed to these two principles -- the total commitment of the judiciary in Singapore to dispensing justice according to law, and to upholding the independence of the judiciary -- and to dispel as forcefully as lies within our power any attempt from any quarter to cast doubt that these two principles are being adhered to here.
There was, alas, a vast chasm separating the precept from the practice.
The attorney general also sought to show that the administration of justice was impartial by stressing the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, thus:
[The] impartial and unbiased administration of the law in all matters, particularly in respect of those matters requiring strict observance of the rules of natural justice, and in respect of matters where the exercise of administrative discretion has been challenged, is the cornerstone upon which our system of justice has been constructed. Those charged with the functions of the government, in all their wide diversity, know full well that ultimately there can be recourse to these courts to correct irregularities and injustices in governmental administration. As in all countries where the rule of law prevails, it is [the] exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction that provides one of the most important safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of power. [Author's underlining]
In stressing the supervisory powers of the courts as the capstone of democracy, the attorney general overlooked the egregious fact that he had argued in habeas corpus applications that orders of detention under the Internal Security Act, Cap. 143 -- a law which allows preventive detention on grounds of national security -- were not justiciable. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies and contradictions in the official statements, he argued the court could "not look behind the orders," and "inquire into the reasons why and wherefore a detention order is made. This is an executive act." The court for its part willingly abdicated its judicial responsibility in favour of officialdom rather than the cause of justice.
The attorney general later drafted the amending legislation depriving the courts of their supervisory jurisdiction, which was -- in his own words -- "one of the most important safeguards against the exercise of arbitrary power." But there was not a squeak of protest from the complaisant judiciary or the legal profession. In the result, applications against administrative actions, like habeas corpus, are now largely legal history.
Judicial accommodation:ANOTHER instance of judicial accommodation may be seen in this case. In 1987, twenty-two young Roman Catholic and social activists were arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA), accused of being Marxists involved in a dangerous conspiracy to subvert the PAP government through violence, and replace it with a Marxist state. They were released only after they had made the ritualistic television confessions. But eight of them were re-arrested when they disclosed those confessions had been coerced out of them. In the ensuing habeas corpus proceedings, the court of appeal had perforce to allow the appeal, but it did so on technical rather than on substantive grounds, thus enabling the government to hurriedly amend the constitution and the relevant laws, and order their re-arrest.
Another egregious example of judicial accommodation is the case of Re Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc Application, where the court of appeal deliberately delayed giving its decision, which had the effect of denying the appellant the opportunity of pursuing its appeal to the Privy Council. Queen’s Counsel for the appellant flew down specially from England to plead with the court to rule on its application, and give its decision later, but in neither one nor the other would the court be hurried. In the result, the appellant lost its right to appeal to the Privy Council. The appellant desperately tried to petition the privy council for special leave to appeal, which said:
Their lordships understand the petitioner's sense of grievance that, after the appeal from the judgment of Sinnathuray, J., had been argued and at a time when it was known that the [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Amendment] Act of 1989 would shortly come into operation, the court of appeal in Singapore did not accede to an invitation to give their decision promptly, if necessary giving their reasons later, which would have enabled the petitioner to take advantage of the transitional provisions in the Act of 1989. ...
Those gentle words of reproach spoke volumes for a free and independent judiciary.
Consequential role:
THE judiciary -- a bulwark between citizen and state -- plays a consequential role in the affairs of a nation, and often sets the ultimate seal of legitimacy on controversial policies and actions of the state by its decisions. Governments, therefore, try to ensure those persons, who are called upon to make these weighty decisions, understand the purpose of controverted legislative acts and policies. The PAP government is no exception. It also tries to ensure that judicial aspirants are screened for loyalty and political correctness. Although the PAP government recognizes the role of the judiciary in the body politic, it no longer sees it as a check on the balance of power in the traditional sense but rather as an important instrument for the prolongation of its political longevity.High court judges are appointed from within the legal and judicial service and among qualified members of the bar by the president on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the chief justice. Judges hold their appointment until the age of 65 years and thereafter at the will of the president. For many years, retiring high court judges have had their appointments extended on contract for short periods at a time and, in some cases, from month to month. Judicial commissioners are employed on time contract. Some do, indeed, make the grade to the high court bench. Needless to say, judges on contract, renewable at the will of the prime minister, is not conducive to judicial independence.
Judgments of the appellate court have to be unanimous, and are delivered by a single judge detailed by the chief justice beforehand. No dissension is countenanced lest a perception is created of disunity within the judicial ranks. Cases are allocated to judges by the registrar of the supreme court, on chief justice’s instructions, and not rotated, or drawn by lots, or channelled to special divisions of the court. Thus, it is not uncommon to find a particular judge, like T.S. Sinnathuray, being commonly assigned sensitive cases with predictable results. Judges known for impartiality, independence and strength of character are never assigned them.
Banker friend:
THE then prime minister Lee appointed his banker-friend, Yong Pung How, as chief justice, who had not practised law for 20 years, whose superior claim to this illustrious position was that he is a loyal crony. His hour-long defence of the appointment in parliament -- during which he delved into bathetic nostalgia, from his student's days at Cambridge University, to the way his friend, the future chief justice, kept meticulous lecture notes enabling him, a late arrival at Cambridge, to borrow his notes to catch up with his law studies; to his personal wealth and magnitude of annual income as banker; to his personal attributes, including a fine judicial temperament; and to his inquiries of his judges to name the three best persons, excluding themselves, all of whom, in a remarkable coincidence, named his friend, as "the best of the possibles" -- rang somewhat hollow and contrived.Adequate economic monthly salaries payable to judges have long been recognized as a condition conducive to a free and independent judiciary. The Judges’ Remuneration Act, 1994, provides that ‘pensionable salaries of the chief justice, every judge of appeal and every other judge of the supreme court’ shall be paid as the minister of finance may from time to time direct.’ This radical but retrogressive change in the law ensures that such payments no longer rests with parliament, making the judiciary dependent on the executive of the day for their paychecks.
The salaries, which the PAP government pays its judges, have much method in its generosity. High court judges receive A$630,000 per annum plus a minimum bonus of three months' salary or A$205,020 at A$68,340 per month, totalling A$835,020, besides other perks and privileges, like a motor car, a government bungalow at economic rent. The chief justice receives A$1,260,000 per annum, besides an official residence (or an housing allowance in lieu thereof), a chauffeur-driven car, among other handsome perks and privileges of office. Indeed, he receives more than the combined stipends of the Lord Chancellor of England, the Chief Justices of the United States, Canada and Australia. As a Queen’s Counsel pointedly queried: "Is this kind of money a salary or an income of permanent bribery?
Supremely confident in the reliability of his judiciary, the prime minister uses the courts as a legal weapon to intimidate, bankrupt or cripple the political opposition, and ventilate his political agenda. He has distinguished himself in numerous legal suits against dissidents and detractors for alleged defamation in Singapore courts, and has won them all. The idea that he could possibly lose is so fanciful that it could be dismissed out of mind. Which judge would be so reckless or foolhardy to award a decision against him? Judges know on which side their bread is buttered.
'Compliant judiciary':CONTRAST the case of former NUS senior lecturer, Christopher Lingle, who wrote an op-ed essay entitled, The Smoke over Parts of Asia Obscures Some Profound Concerns, in the International Herald Tribune, with that of columnist Bernard Levin, who published a hard-hitting essay, The law grossly misused, in The Times of London. Lingle had referred to ‘intolerant regimes’ in the region relying upon a ‘compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians in suppressing dissent.’ No country was named. Nonetheless, he was sued for defamation. The prime minister went out of his way to prove that it was Singapore that Lingle had referred to, by citing a litany of legal cases which he had brought against opposition politicians and dissidents. Lingle fled Singapore. Even his NUS pensions savings were attached to pay towards the prime minister’s damages and costs.
Bernard Levin’s case, on the other hand, shows that no matter how grave the provocation, the prime minister does not easily embark on litigation outside his own bailiwick. Levin, a highly-respected columnist with The Times, had published two other hard-hitting op-ed essays on Singapore, regarding which the prime minister complained in a letter to the editor of The Times as "`unrestrained indictment' of my premiership ... and is false in so many respects ... so unfair, and indeed irresponsible as a piece of journalism ... Just as he [Levin] makes the outrageous allegation that judges in Singapore are `bent or cowed', ..."
In spite of all this, the prime minister did not see it fit to sue nor even threaten to sue Levin or The Times for defamation. Instead, he offered to "discuss" those allegations with Levin in a debate on British television. Levin refused the proposed discussion. It does not require any great leap of imagination to realise that the prime minister knew that he could not influence their lordships at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Like Sun Tzu, the celebrated Chinese military strategist, he knows his ground, and chooses it with care.
The notorious case of Public Prosecutor v Tan Wah Piow demonstrates the parlous state of the judiciary in Singapore. Tan -- a third-year architectural student, and president of the University of Singapore Students Union (USSU) -- was charged, together with two others, with rioting inside the premises of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union (PIEU), a government-controlled trade union, whose general secretary was Phey Yew Kok, a member of parliament and rising star on the PAP firmament. Phey was also president of the National Trades Union Congress, which has strong symbiotic ties with the PAP government.
The trial was partisan justice at its ugliest before the ambitious district court judge T.S. Sinnathuray, who kept Tan and his co-accused on a choke-leash. Tan's application for an adjournment to enable his counsel, John Platts-Mills, QC -- who had already been specially admitted to the Singapore bar -- to travel to Singapore for the purpose was twice denied by the trial judge. Vital defence witnesses were arrested on the morning of the trial, and deported.
The defendants claimed the riot within, and damage to, the premises had been fabricated by Phey Yew Kok, but they were not allowed to produce evidence of it at the trial, as indeed other matters they considered crucial to their case. Concerned at the judge's selective recordings of the proceedings, Tan applied for the trial to be tape-recorded, which was denied. The judge for his part made no bones of what the outcome of the proceedings would be. His periodic ejaculations, "Forget about public interest!", "Forget about justice!", and "Forget about a fair trial!" -- albeit vented in exasperation to Tan's urgent applications or protestations to his rulings -- punctuated the proceedings, setting a leitmotif, which became a grim reality. All three accused were found guilty, and convicted. Tan was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, and his co-accused to one month's imprisonment each. Shortly afterwards, Sinnathuray was promoted to the high court.
An Australian Queen's Counsel, Frank Galbally, who observed the trial for the Australian Union of Students, said: "In Australia, the case would be laughed out of court ... the evidence and procedure ... would, in my opinion, have aborted any trial in Australia ... [The three accused] did not get a fair trial. ... In my opinion, it is just a political trial."
The experience of an English silk in a criminal trial in Singapore provides another perspective. Alun Jones, QC, discharged himself "for the first time in 23 years' practice," describing the judicial proceedings as "a travesty of a trial" and a "perversion of a judicial process." The trial judge displayed a "craven attitude" towards the prosecution.
Political interests:THE New York City Bar Association, after a fact-finding mission to Singapore led by the late Robert B. McKay, then dean of the New York University Law School, observed:
What emerges ... is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. ... Any US venture contemplating business in Singapore or with a Singapore company is likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest. If a dispute arises with such an enterprise, the US company faces the prospect of a law suit before Singapore's judiciary. The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests. ... The only check on the Singapore judiciary is the prospect of ultimate appeal to the Privy Council in London.
That report was published in October 1990. Since then, appeals to the privy council have been abolished. The supervisory powers of the courts have been removed.
HPL issue:LAST but one. The recent barrage of defamation actions by senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP leaders against lawyer and opposition Workers’ Party candidate, Tang Liang Hong, reveals further the politics of the Singapore judiciary.
HPL -- Hotels and Properties Limited -- is a public company listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. One of its directors, Dr Lee Suan Yew -- a younger brother of Harry Lee Kuan Yew, the senior minister -- and one other bought a luxury condominium unit in an HPL development. As they were ‘connected persons and associates,’ HPL was enjoined under the rules of the Stock Exchange to seek shareholders’ approval for sales of the units to them. It did not do so. Some 11 months elapsed. Several disgruntled shareholders served notice of their intention to call a shareholders’ meeting. To thwart unpleasant publicity, HPL sought waiver of the rule from the Stock Exchange, which, on April 22, 1996, censured the directors and reminded them of their duty to ‘maximise the return to shareholders.’ It was, therefore, only a matter of time before the identities of any other purchasers, who had also been given similar discounts, became known to all and sundry.
On April 23, 1996, the following day -- to pre-empt the inevitable adverse publicity -- senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son and deputy prime minister Brig Gen Lee Hsien Loong disclosed that they, too, had each purchased a unit in NassimJade/Scotts Road No. 28, at discounted prices, and paid the discounts they had received into government Treasury.
An informal inquiry, conducted by the minister for finance, assisted by a MAS -- Monetary Authority of Singapore -- deputy managing director, at the behest of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, purported to clear them of any impropriety. Prime Minister Goh ordered Treasury to return the difference to father and son, which they gave to charity instead. It is not impertinent to ask why did the senior minister and his son, the deputy prime minister, consider it necessary to divest themselves of the proceeds, if the purchase was above board!
Parliament was convened to enable members to ask questions of the senior minister, whose rambling defence of those controversial purchases has to be seen, heard and read to be believed for sheer arrogance and obfuscation. Even so, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced new rules requiring ministers to declare all property purchases, including prices, discounts and preferential terms received. There, the matter rested, until Tang was interviewed by the Hongkong-based Chinese weekly magazine, Yazhou Zhoukan. In that fateful interview, Tang observed:
"Why wasn’t this matter handed over to a professional body like Commercial Affairs Department or Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau? They are government departments not only rich in experience, but are also well-known for being iron-faced with selflessness" [a Chinese phrase meaning firm and impartial]. They would be more detached and their reports would have been more convincing to the people. Koh Beng Seng and Finance Minister Richard Hu are after all not experts in this field."
Lee and his son took offence at those remarks, and commenced a libel action. The presiding judge was Justice Lai Kew Chai, a former partner of the prime minister’s law firm of Lee and Lee.
Defamation writs:PENDING the hearing, Tang Liang Hong stood as an opposition Workers’ Party (WP) candidate in the January 1997 general election, during which Lee and his PAP colleagues accused him of being an ‘anti-Christian and anti-English-educated Chinese chauvinist.’ Tang retorted they were lies. And made a cardinal error in announcing that, if elected, he would raise the HPL matter in parliament. Lee and his colleagues responded by filing defamation writs against Tang for calling them liars. Tang made a police report against them alleging a conspiracy to defame and cause him harm only to be met with further defamation suits totalling 12 in all. On December 31, 1996, they filed their writs which were served on him the same day. It was not a season for good will among men. Significantly, only Tang was sued. None of the mass media, which reported the alleged libel, was sued at all. Justice Lai presided over all those cases, and issued several orders touching the suits, including on Lee’s application, a Mareva injunction freezing Tang’s and his wife’s assets in Singapore and elsewhere.
Tang applied to have Lai disqualified as the presiding judge and the several orders in the various suits, including the Mareva injunction, be set aside. It transpired that Justice Lai had also purchased a unit in the same HPL Nassim Jade development together with his wife, at even deeper discount than the Lees. It was contended that one of the issues for determination at the trial would be the propriety of HPL giving large discounts to persons holding high positions in government and other public institutions, and whether HPL, as a public-listed company, had discharged its duty to its shareholders to obtain the best price for its property development in the circumstances. And, therefore, Justice Lai’s purchase of the HPL unit could be in issue.
Conceding that ‘some people might question if he should be ruling on a matter which concerned himself,’ Justice Lai observed that Tang could ‘have recourse to a court of appeal if he disagreed with the ruling.’ Thus, he did not recuse himself from the case, but cleared the court, heard the application in camera, and ordered Tang to appear before him at the adjourned hearing because of ‘factual errors,’ chiding him for not ‘hav[ing] the courage or decency to face him in court ...’
As for the Mareva injunction, there was no evidence that Tang had done anything in regard to them, which could be construed as attempts to defeat any possible judgment against him, save for his temporary presence in Malaysia, and Lee’s bare allegations: "I was baffled. He [Tang] claimed that his life was under threat. But of all places he went to Johor. That place is notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings." It was -- to put it kindly -- sheer hyperbole. When it was revealed what Lee had deposed to in his supporting affidavit, it upset the Malaysian government and its people. Lee apologised ‘unreservedly’ through his press secretary, but made no retraction, pleading that it was not meant to be made public. In any event, no reasonable judge, it is submitted, would have allowed such a sweeping scandalous assertion to ground the application. Under increasing Malaysian pressure, Lee finally retracted the offending paragraph -- and, in the process, opened a Pandora box as to the legal effects of the several orders and the judgments. The effects of this case are still rippling beyond the shores of Singapore.
As a matter of interest, according to the latest UN Commission on Justice on crime statistics worldwide, the homicide rate in Malaysia (1.76 per 100,000) is in fact lower than that of Singapore (1.77 per 100,000). But the rate for total assaults in Singapore (34.12 per 100,000) is more than twice that of Malaysia (14.54 per 100,000), while the rate for robberies is almost twice as high in Singapore as in Malaysia (56.30 for Singapore against 32.75 for Malaysia).
On March 10 -- two months and eleven days -- Lee and his colleagues obtained judgments against him in the 12 suits estimated at S$12 million in damages, excluding costs. In an unprecedented move, two high court judges sat in succession to determine the matter -- Justice Lai from 2.30 pm until 8 pm on Tang’s application to recuse himself, immediately after which the case was assigned to Justice Goh Joon Seng, who sat till well past 9 pm, struck out all Tang’s defences, and awarded judgments to Lee and his colleagues. The 13th suit filed by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was heard the next day.
'Instant justice':
JUSTICE was swift but was it fair? Lee and his political colleagues had no difficulty in filing any application in court, their papers were served and heard the same day -- a privilege and sense of urgency, however, denied to Tang and his wife, who had been dragged into the proceedings. Tang described it as PAP’s ‘instant justice.’ ‘They can easily get instant judgment on pre-set terms.’ When his wife applied to set aside what Tang termed the ‘absurd’ order making her a co-defendant to the suits against him, her application was set down for hearing one month away. In all my years at the bar, I have rarely seen such purposeful judicial industry. Tang’s complaint of selective justice is by no means an isolated case. There are others. I have recounted similar experiences in my book, To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison.In a 40-page impassioned judgment Justice Lai dismissed Tang’s application, describing his allegations as ‘false,’ and ‘a move calculated to delay the proceedings. ... In the process, he muddied the waters and spread a lot of poison against me, senior minister Lee and deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong. He was so mendacious that he did not care at all if the reputations of a judge, senior minister Lee and deputy prime minister Lee were unjustifiably attacked and sullied. It was a vicious, collateral and totally unwarranted attack on my integrity. ... [Tang] appeared to be speaking from two ends of his mouth at the same time. ... In his absence from court, there was no opportunity to test his veracity.’
[Editor's note: See: Tang's appeal]
Let me recall to mind the dreadful words of Dr Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s notorious minister of propaganda: "Justice must not become the mistress of the state, but must be the servant of state policy". Those words could just as well have been spoken by Harry Lee Kuan Yew or by any one of the PAP ministers. For Singapore’s judiciary is well on its way to this Goebbelsian utopia.
Superb illustration:
THE situation is replicated in the subordinate courts. My case provides a superb illustration. After a date for mention had been fixed in open court, and counsel departed the court building, an embarrassed registrar cancelled it on higher instructions, and, ignoring the congested court calendar, brought the case forward over strenuous objections of counsel -- who had been summoned to return to court -- to dovetail the new date with the forthcoming general election -- which the prime minister had secretly fixed, but had not yet announced. As it originally stood, the trial would have taken place long after the general election was over. The fact of the trial was critical as election fodder to the PAP government, and as damper on the growing groundswell of support for me. Indeed, during the election, voters were warned it was "useless" to vote for me, for, if elected, I would have to vacate my seat since I would be convicted. This was exactly what happened! You may think it was an amazing display of the PAP government's faith in the infallibility of its judges!
Be that as it may, counsel applied to the high court for an urgent revision of the registrar's decision, after prevailing upon a reluctant supreme court registry to accept the requisite motion papers. By a strange coincidence, the emergency judge for that day was the ineluctable Sinnathuray, who was not available. After a long wait, it became painfully obvious that he was not overly anxious to hear the motion. Counsel was advised to leave the registry and await word of the judge's availability. No word came through that whole day. Upon inquiry the next morning, counsel was tersely informed that the ever-reliable judge Sinnathuray had dismissed the application. It illustrates the obstacles which beset dissidents who seek justice in the courts. The manipulation of court calendars to suit the prosecution's hidden agenda is well-known in the profession.
The author, Francis T. Seow, is the former solicitor general of Singapore. He is presently a Visiting Fellow, East Asia Legal Studies Harvard Law School. USA. He is the author of two books on Singapore.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Has Francis Seow been a Fellow in Harvard Laws School?
I read a letter from then SG Ambassdor to US,SR Nathan,
wrote to US press (Nathan currentlySG President),
that Seow was not a Fellow in Harvard Laws School.
So,can u guys,Friends of Francis Seow ,tell me when did
Seow get appointed as Fellow or other post in Harvard?
Here is his answer in 2003.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031019fs.htm
ll
Firstly, I would like to state this fact, "you are a pure moron".
If you used to teach at Harvard University afew years back, somebody now ask you. Are you still teaching at Harvard University? You said no. Does it mean that you didn't use to teach at Harvard?
Do you have the intellect to even make a guess of Francis Seow's age? He used to teach at Harvard Law, he has retired because of age, unlike some cancerous growth in the Singapore government which persist in causing death and destruction.
Please get some English lessons or get a brain transplant!!!
In the Wizard of Oz (your infactuation with Australia), the lion didn't have courage, but I guess in your case lionnoisy, you don't have courage and brains. You are like the scarecrow and lion all wrap into one, like the two in one coffee these days.
Geeez!!!
Retarded lionnoisy!!!
Straws for brains!!!
Even the Singapore government recognizes his position as a Fellow at Harvard University.
18.SENIOR MINISTER LEE KUAN YEW IN RISING TO SPEAK TOLD THE HOUSE THAT AS PRIME MINISTER,................................................1.20. MR LEE SAID HE'S CONVINCED THAT SINGAPORE WILL BECOME BETTER DESPITE THE ATTACKS FROM WESTERN HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND FRANCIS SEOW, WHO'S NOW A FELLOW AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY. IN: YOU MAY IMPRESS.... OUT: ...NO VOTES IN SINGAPORE..............................
Source: MISAS
-
lionnoisy,
This is a plea for mercy. Please stop making everyone stupid like you. If you want to have fun posting, try the humour section. One moron like you in Singapore is bad enough, now you want to convert everybody to think like you, it will be a sad case for Singapore especially with the increase in brain drain.
-
lionnoisy, why you keep on defending PAP regime's political oppression of Singaporeans?
Now you on the side of PAP regime, they won't touch you.
But what if SDP next time in power how?
They use ISA this type of oppressive law to detain you for 32 years, and I come here to the forum and defend SDP regime against you, you like or not?
-
Morons can't differentiate the difference between repressive regimes and egalitarian regimes!!!
Anything propagate through the mass media is the truth and good.
Seriously, in my earthly existence, I have yet to meet a bigger moron than lionnoisy.
-
It's a good thing that sgForums is anonymous, else I don't know how you face people everyday.
-
lionnoisy, what if below is your friend or relative?
Detained under ISA, you support or not?
I went to bed at about 1 am. At slightly before 2 am, very loud banging on the glass door woke me. Still half asleep, I thought the noise might go away, but I heard it again, and some noises outside the house. I woke Peter and he went to the door.
I saw flashing lights and some people outside. One of them said that they were searching for illegal immigrants and showed his badge. He also said that he was from Joo Chiat Police Station. I felt fear and knew that they were Internal Security Department (ISD) officers.
Peter opened the door and let in the four officers, three Chinese males and one female. He carried a sack. Once inside, a Chinese in his early 40s asked whether I was Tang Fong Har. I nodded yes, and he told me that I was under arrest under the Internal Security Act.
Though it was not totally unexpected, I was nevertheless stunned and speechless. He warned us not to move, and the others then systematically searched the house - the bedrooms, the bathrooms, the kitchen and the living room. I did not see them searching the garden.
The man who had spoken to us stood near us all the while. Peter asked him, "Doesn't she have any rights?" He looked at Peter in a funny way and the rest laughed cynically. The search took some 40 minutes. They seized my address-book, file of cuttings and articles on the May 20 arrests, some copies of minutes of the Law Society Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) meetings...
http://www.singapore-window.org/tfhmemo.htm
What if Francis Seow become PM and he tell ISD to go to your house at 3 am to invite you to limp kopi?
How?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Where is this Department of Asian Studies at Harvard University.?
i am only able to get East Asian Legal Studies,Harvard Law School.
Sorry i am very strict in details and facts.
Manu of u wrote without vertifying.Materials appear in English
and from famous U dunt gurantee true.
oh i think i get it.
If it is true:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ftsview.htm
Francis T. Seow,
Visiting Fellow, East Asian Legal Studies
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. USAhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/eals/
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/f.html
can u give me evidences that HE was there.
I still remember SR Nathan ,then Ambassdor to US,
wrote to US press that Seow
was not a Visiting Fellow in Harvard Law School.
mmm
You even self-pwn yourself.
Man!!!
You really are the lamest lion I have ever seen in my entire life.
Previous