9 Apr 2005

IMH detention at President's pleasure

From Singapore Democrat.org

Robert Ho threatened with IMH detention at President's pleasure
8 April 2005

Like Mr Boon Suan Ban, Mr Robert Ho has been arrested and remanded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) - repeatedly, in the latter's case. Mr Ho had gone to the West Mall Shopping Centre on 27 February 2005 to distribute flyers about the elections system in Singapore.

Later that day, the police came and arrested Mr Ho and brought him to the IMH. They came the following day and carted away his computer. About two weeks later, Mr Ho said that just as he was about to be discharged, the police ordered his continued detention because they wanted to charge him in court. A few days later, he was released without being charged.

The police later called Mr Ho's wife and told her that her husband cannot continue to do what he did and that they could have charged him in court and put him under remand in IMH at the President's pleasure.

In was a coincidence that Mr Ho was remanded at the IMH at about the same time that Mr Boon Suan Ban was incarcerated. Mr Boon is in custody at the President's pleasure.

A few years earlier, Mr Robert Ho was also arrested by the police and investigated for criminal defamation for posting an article about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's daughter-in-law, Mdm Ho Ching. His computer equipment was also confiscated then which have not been returned to him. Mr Ho had said then that the police had told him that if he stopped posting articles on the Internet, he would not be charged. When Mr Ho agreed he was released.

Several disturbing questions arise from the arrests and detention of Messrs Boon and Ho regarding the rule of law in Singapore. What rights are available to the two men and other people who are similarly detained? Is the State abusing its powers? What implications do the arrests have for the rest of us? These issues will be discussed at the public forum organised by the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) at Hotel Asia on 16 April 2005 at 2 pm. The death penalty and the impending execution of a Singaporean, Mr Shanmugam s/o Murugesu, will also be debated. The mother and the twin sons of Mr Shanmugam will be present at the forum to appeal for clemency for death-row inmate.

Amnesty International Spokesman, Mr Tim Parritt, will also speak at the forum as will Mr Anthony Yeo, Singapore's foremost social counselor. The other speakers are: Mr J B Jeyaretnam, lawyer M Ravi, Think Centre Executive Director S Samydorai, and Dr Chee Soon Juan.

As the topic "Death Penalty and the Rule of Law in Singapore" concerns the legal community the OSC has invited most of the law firms in the country. It will also extend an invitation to the Law Society.

The forum promises to be intellectually and emotionally engaging. Make a date with the OSC and come and join in the discussion that concerns us all. Admission is free and all are welcome.


Someone out there in Singapore with an internet connection has got to have a copy of the offending flyer. My email address is in the top right-hand corner of this blog. I beg you to email me, and we can arrange a way of getting the offending document to me and online. Please...

6 comments:

redrown said...

Er..technically the State is not abusing its powers since there are such powers in place..

I think the better question would be to ask how such discretionary powers at the State's disposal are allowed to come into being and tolerated/welcomed..

Anonymous said...

The report stated that Robert was distributing pamplets relating to the election system. It would most likely be this allegation of vote-rigging in 1997.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.singapore/search?group=soc.culture.singapore&q=Robert+Ho+Cheng+San&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group


RH: MY TESTIMONY ON LKY ELECTION RIGGING CHENG SAN 1997
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree
Robert HO Jan 4, 10:22 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: Robert HO
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:22:10 +0800
Local: Tues,Jan 4 2005 10:22 am
Subject: RH: MY TESTIMONY ON LKY ELECTION RIGGING CHENG SAN 1997
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

TESTIMONY OF LEE KUAN YEW’s ELECTION FRAUD IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OF
1997 IN THE CHENG SAN GROUP REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCY ELECTION, BY
Robert Ho, NRIC No. S0197974D.


1. My name is Robert Ho Chong. I am a Singapore citizen by birth. I am
54 years old as of writing this on 5 Jan 05 in the early hours of 0028.
I have been told, in email and in person, by a direct eyewitness, that
he, a male Singaporean slightly older than I, saw with his own eyes,
together with his lawyer friend, [who has his own law firm in
Singapore], the fraudulent rigging of the election in the Cheng San GRC,
in the counting centre of Anderson Junior College School, which the
People’s Action Party, whose head was Lee Kuan Yew, won by a very narrow
margin of ballots, this margin achieved by the simple expedient of
bringing in extra fake PAP ballots enough to win.


2. I have been publicising these facts since I was first informed of
them by my informant, first by email, then in personal testimony, since
9 May 03 when I was still residing in the United Kingdom, my first
public posting of such facts being 9 May 03,UK time 1044 hours
[Singapore time 1744 hours]. I first posted these facts in the
newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore, as one of my numerous postings [6,690
to date] to inform readers of the newsgroup what I had received by
email. This, I did with Copy & Paste, so as to keep my informant’s email
as accurate as possible, leaving out only his name and anything that
might reveal his identity [the consequences of incurring the wrath of
Lee Kuan Yew is almost suicidal, so every Singaporean knows better than
to tell the truths about him, let alone lies or slander]. I have been
actively writing articles and comments in soc.culture.singapore for many
years and use the Google Groups version to archive all my original
better articles and ideas in this URL :--


http://groups-beta.google.com/­group/soc.culture.singapore/br­owse_frm/...


[This URL gives the page RH: ROBERT's ALMOST-COMPLETE ARCHIVE OF WORKS ].


3. When my wife, son and I returned from our year and a half stay in the
UK around 5 Jul 04, I immediately emailed my informant for a face to
face meeting in which I could further probe his testimony as to what he
saw that night and early morning of the Ballot Counting Centre in
Anderson Junior College School. He agreed, with some trepidation and
reluctance, to meet me in the Cofee Garden of the Shangri La hotel, in
which we were staying pending the arrival of our belongings and personal
effects from the UK. My wife, KOH Gek Noi, NRIC S1174495H, a senior
manager in a large MultiNational Company, an accountant by training and
drawing a five-figure salary, and I met this our informant from about
1pm to nearly 5pm. During this time, my informant related to my wife and
I the events that he and his lawyer friend saw, that showed beyond doubt
that the Government of Lee Kuan Yew rigged the Cheng San GRC election by
bringing in fake ballot papers, mostly in favour of his PAP party
candidates, in 8-10 ballot boxes by 2 men dressed in army uniforms.


4. I hereby Copy & Paste the entire original posting I made on 9 May 03 :--


RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged? 'Proof'?


Robert Ho May 9 2003, 2:56 am
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: h...@pacific.net.sg (Robert Ho)
Date: 9 May 2003 02:56:54 -0700
Local: Fri, May 9 2003 2:56 am


Subject: RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged? 'Proof'?


QUOTE: " You may be interested to know the following:


On the polling night of the Cheng San elections I was with a lawyer
friend - quite prominent- sitting at a coffee shop directly opposite
the etrance to the Anderson School where the counring was to take
place for Cheng San.


Our vantage point was about 20' higher than the road which fronted the
school gates. The school building was another 50 metres away from the
gates. The gates were closed with two uniformed police as security.
The lights in the open coumpound up to the building were off but the
building lights were well on.


The counting should have started at about 8pm but we took our
positions about 8.30pm.


We had one eye on the Anderson School counting centre and another eye
ahead of us on the coffeeshop TV monitor perched a little above our
heads. We could keep watch on the TV to see the results as they came
in and also on the school.
At about 10.30pm we noticed a small closed van approach the gates and
gates opened after some inquiry by the security police and the small
van drove straight to the building. This was unusual as the other few
vehicles that entered the building that we saw all turned to the left
upon entering to park. But this van was allowed to proceed to the
building entrance.


We were interested and watched closely the driver and his assistant,
both in army uniforms, went to the rear doors of the van and took our
some boxes and proceeded to carry them to the building. They did a few
trips each with a box. The boxes looked like ballot boxes.


We would be about 80 metres away and noted that the van had no
markings but was of one colour which in the darkness could have been
grey. After carrying the boxes in and immediatly after, the van drove
off with the same two persons.
Nothing untoward occurred further that night.


We waited at the spot until all other results were out and announced
but not Cheng San which completed at about 1.40am or so.


We were known to one of the Cheng San opposition party candidates and
we asked him what took so long as he was in there and also with the
two other scrutineers of the opposition party. This was after they
emerged from the counting centre.


They were surprised themselves and said that the counting took some
time because there was recount after recount.


But they said that what was stranger was that they were well into the
counting when the Rreturning officer on duty said there were another
few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had just arrived. This
approximated to the time we saw the van driving up to the school
building.


The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked the unopened boxes
and found that the opposition party seals were not in place.They
informed the Returning Officer who then said that the absence of the
opposition seal did not render them invalid as the responsibility for
having the seal in posiiton was that of the opposition party.


The boxes contents (votes) were counted and they noted that the votes
composition was very much in favour of the PAP unlike the other boxes
where they votes more or less balanced out.


We drove the two lady scrutineers home and upon oiur inquiries we
learned from them in all their innocence that the extra ballot boxes
wre only opened and counted after the initial counting had taken
place. Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings. We know somebody had
been had.


The Returnoing Officer is duty bound to ensure that all ballot boxes
are in place before allowing counting to commence. " UNQUOTE


........


RH:


Dear Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr J B Jeyaretnam,


The above email was sent to me by a friend. It seems to be a strong
indication that the PAP falsified the Cheng San election, which, as
you know, was 'won' narrowly by the PAP team, defeating Mr Tang Liang
Hong and Mr J B Jeyaretnam and 3 others (Cheng San was a Group
Representation Constituency of 5 Members).


I believe the above email to me to be true but Mr Jeyaretnam can
always call on his old ties with the Workers Party to double check.
For example, my friend wrote that, "We waited at the spot until all
other results were out and announced but not Cheng San which completed
at about 1.40am or so." Now, this can be verified to check that if
indeed, Cheng San was the LAST constituency to have its results
declared. Mr Jeyaretnam could probably confirm this.


Also, "They were surprised themselves and said that the counting took
some time because there was recount after recount." Again, Mr
Jeyaretnam could probably confirm if there was recount after recount,
probably to determine how many fake ballot papers were needed for the
PAP to win.


Then, "But they said that what was stranger was that they were well
into the counting when the Rreturning officer on duty said there were
another few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had just arrived"
Again, Mr Jeyaretnam or the WP election monitors/scrutineers could
probably confirm this.


For "The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked the unopened
boxes and found that the opposition party seals were not in place."
Again, this can probably be confirmed by Mr Jeyaretnam and the
monitors/scrutineers, as well as the unnamed WP candidate.


Then, "The boxes contents (votes) were counted and they noted that the
votes composition was very much in favour of the PAP unlike the other
boxes where they votes more or less balanced out." This, again, can be
verified by those present, including probably Mr Jeyaretnam, the other
4 candidates, and the monitors/scrutineers.


This is very serious: "...the extra ballot boxes wre only opened and
counted after the initial counting had taken place." This is a clear
breach of election procedure and election law.


Finally, "Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings.We know somebody had
been had." The second sentence is a fair conclusion.


What next?


Since the ballot papers are kept for only a few months/years? they are
probably burnt by now. The lesson the Opposition should learn is to
challenge in court the validity of any perceived shenanigans AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE. For example, if a court order were to be obtained for a
recount of the stored ballots, we could see WHETHER ANY SERIAL NUMBERS
ON THE PAPERS WERE DUPLICATED OR FAKED since every paper is serially
numbered. Also, IF THERE WERE MORE VOTES THAN RESIDENTS IN CHENG SAN,
THIS COULD BE DISCOVERED. However, this could be manipulated by
deleting some say, precinct result and replacing it with a false set
so there is no overall 'gain' discrepancy.


Finally, the real danger to any democracy is electronic voting. If
electronic voting is introduced, the results could be manipulated any
way, at will, by those with access to the machines or if computer
voting is used, any hacker with enough skill to hack into the system
and change the results at will. We have already seen how hackers seem
to enjoy targetting Opposition parties, with one party's political
mailing list deleted, wiping out months of hard work (other mailing
lists were left untouched) and at least one Opposition website defaced
with a porn message.


God, what a revelation!


Robert Ho
9 May 03
UK 1044 S'pore 1744
..............................­..............................­.......


5. The reaction to my postings was muted because all the regulars and
indeed, all the adults in Singapore, know better than to even SEEM to be
anti-Lee Kuan Yew, which is almost economic suicide, and all the
regulars in the newsgroup, of which there are not many, numbering some
dozens or so, mostly let my postings alone without even a comment,
knowing that the secret police in this police state read every single
word posted and have traced posters to charge them in court. Indeed, I
myself have been arrested once and charged in court once for a posting I
made; then ordered to the Criminal Investigation Department for another
posting/s which such case is still unresolved. My computer has been
seized by the CID twice, and is still now with them.


6. However, the PAPist regulars in soc.culture.singapore, of which
there are many, whose job is to defuse any politically dangerous
postings, tried very hard, mostly by 'shouting' and repetition, to drown
out my testimony. Their favourite ploy was to question my sanity and
indeed, when I was working 2 jobs simultaneously around 1975, as a
teacher by day and a Straits Times sub-editor by night, I did have a
mental breakdown due to lack of, and irregular, sleep. This finally
culminated in a fullblown mental illness, successfully treated in 1979,
after which I returned to work, as an advertising copywriter, for 12
years. After which, another series of personal events consumed my life.


7. A few days ago, on Sun 2 Jan 05, I went to a meeting of Dr Chee Soon
Juan and Mr Ghandi Ambalam and about a dozen others. It was their
meeting, quite a regular event and I had never joined them before. I
joined this time because I had heard that there would be a forum to
study the election system in Singapore and I wanted the meeting to know
what I had learnt from my informant, who was a former Police Inspector
or some such high ranking officer. I took the opportunity to testify to
the meeting what I had heard from my informant and this written
testimony is the written version largely of what I had told the meeting
verbally. I also distributed 2 copies of one of my numerous postings in
soc.culture.singapore :--


http://groups-beta.google.com/­group/soc.culture.singapore/br­owse_frm/...


[This URL gives the page RH: WORKERS PARTY Abdul Rahim Bin Osman CAN
TESTIFY CHENG SAN 1997 PAP FRAUD ELECTION ].


8. If the ARDA Forum Study Group on Elections in Singapore wants to
speak with me, I can be contacted at :--


[Contact details NOT to be published; only for use by ARDA Committee only].


Robert HO
5 Jan 05
Singapore 0220

soci said...

thanks anon.

Trowa Evans said...

The question is what can we do with this information?

soci said...

Difficult to know. Start by spreading it. I am sure that the Singapore Democratic Party has brought it to the attention of NGO's. During the coming election ensure that it doesn't happen again. If it does, widely publicise it.

Anonymous said...

"The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked the unopened boxes
and found that the opposition party seals were not in place.They
informed the Returning Officer who then said that the absence of the
opposition seal did not render them invalid as the responsibility for
having the seal in posiiton was that of the opposition party."

-------------

Woah.... I'm blown away by the RO's statement.