30 Jul 2006

Chees' case against the Lees: Part I

From Singapore Democratic Party

30 Jul 06

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin filed their affidavits for the summary judgement hearing on 3 Aug 06. The affidavit which presents the case against the Lees will be posted on this website in separate instalments. Part A is presented below:

A. Test of what is defamatory

1. In the Halsbury Laws of Singapore, the test of whether a statement is defamatory or not, the Courts must consider:

a. What meaning the words would convey to the ordinary person.

b. Whether the reasonable person would be likely to understand them in a defamatory sense.

c. The views of the community as a whole, and not just that of a limited class.

2. It is therefore important to show that the ordinary, reasonable person in the community had formed the same views following the scandal of the National Kidney Foundation (“NKF”). This is because if such persons had formed similar views, the words in The New Democrat article “The Govt’s role in the NKF scandal” (“the Article”) would not be deemed defamatory. The following sentence in the Article formed the main thesis: “It is impossible not to notice the striking resemblance between how the NKF operated and how the PAP runs Singapore.”

3. In December 2005, four months before the Article was published Yawning Bread, a website published by Alex Au, posted an article entitled “The political parallels to the NKF scandal” in which the author also compared the resemblance between how the NKF operated (under NKF CEO TT Durai) and the way Singapore was run by the Government:

“I can see five aspects of the NKF scandal that parallels features of Singapore's political system, and now that the systemic failings of the NKF are being brought to public attention in such an ignominious fashion, they may cause longer-term complications for the ruling party. They are:

- The use of defamation suit
- Durai's high salary and perks
- Incompetence in government
- Oversight of executives
- Dollars and cents as the criterion of success”

4. The community at large also compared the operation of the NKF with the running of Singapore. The Straits Times (6 Jan 2006) published reporter Li Xueying’s statement:

“Some people have drawn parallels between the NKF and the Government, namely the use and justification of high salaries to draw talents, the use of libel suits to silence critics and the political patronage.”

5. Discussions commenting on the similarity of the operations of the Government and the NKF in the Internet was rife:

Publish the salaries of PAP ministers for all to see

T T Durai, Defamation Lawsuits, And The PAP Government

Be Open on HDB Flat Pricing --- Open Letter to PM Lee

NKF Saga III: Transparency & Accountability?

Where’s the defamation?

The Similarities Between Durai's NKF & the PAP

Singapore's Greedy Ministers Compared With Other World Leaders

NKF Scam Places Spotlight On Rediculous Minister Salaries

Understanding Legitmized Corruption - The NKF Scam

The Board Behind The NKF Scam



Anonymous said...

There is no justice in Singapore.

Anonymous said...

Justice, what justice? Power is justice.

lee hsien tau said...

Risking Death and Dismemberment: Court Date with Destiny

Summons to an accused person

Dated this 4th day of July, 2006 (funny it wasn't stuck on the door until more than 2 weeks later)

Case ID: SC-019929-06
Charge No: TC-007025-2006

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) Section 158-160


You, KOH CHONG KIANG (NRIC No S1471858C), the leesee of Apartment Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245 Singapore 050536, are charged that you have failed to pay the outstanding conservancy and service charges for the months of December 2003 to September 2005 (actually, Dec 2003 to date) of $529.00 (actually, the number seemed to have gone up and down) due and owing to the Town Council of Jalan Besar within 14 days from the date of service on you of a written demand dated 10 March 2006 and that you have thereby committed an offence under Section 39(7) of the Town Councils Act (Cap 329A) and punishable under the said Section thereof.

You are hereby required to appear on the 3rd day of August, 2006 at 6.00pm in person before the Subordinate Court No. CT 26N at Singapore and you are hereby warned that if you shall, without just excuse, neglect or refuse to appear on the said date, a Warrant may be issued to compel your attendance.

1) There's only enough balance in my CPF to service the mortgage for 2 more months.
2) The utilities bill has been outstanding for more than 6 months.
3) Not taking into account other non-recoverable debt owing to Singtel, Starhub and M1.
4) Telling the MP Low Meng See in 3 visits but seeing his face only once, just before the election - so I was surprised to learn that somebody was privileged to sock MP Seng Hang Thong in the face - but not getting the message through, only to find him off the radar screen after the election.
5) Is it an offence to be poor and jobless?

At the time I'm due to appear in court, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin's application
to challenge the constitutionality of the summary judgment for the very simple reason that it does not allow for a trial to take place, the Courts scheduled the application to be heard not only on the same day but at the same time as the summary judgment - 3 August 2006 at 10 am, would be known.