THE CORPORATION

I am not usually one to advertise a product here, but I think that it would be nice if you are living in Singapore to hear an alternative view on corporations rather than the daily grind of ass-kissing you are fed by the Straits Jacket or the other State controlled mass media.
 

THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman , Noam Chomsky , Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

Winner of 24 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, 10 of them AUDIENCE CHOICE AWARDS including the AUDIENCE AWARD for DOCUMENTARY in WORLD CINEMA at the 2004 SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL. The long-awaited DVD, available now in Australia and coming in March to North America, contains over 8 hour of additional footage.

The film is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan .


To view the trailer in various formats click here.

Interrogatories from Dr Chee Soon Juan to Mr Lee Kuan

The article below is so important that I just have to post it in full. It's the questions that Dr Chee is asking Lee Kuan Yew. You got to read this, not that I can imagine Lee Kuan Yew actually replying.


In his defence, Mr Lee cited Dr Chee’s surreptitious recording of his conversation with Dr S Vasoo, former PAP MP and the one who initiated Dr Chee’s sacking, as evidence to support his accusation of Dr Chee. Mr Lee, in his interrogatory, asked Dr Chee the following questions:

1. With respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, did the Defendant on 7 December 1992 bring a tape recorder to see Dr S. Vasoo, the Head of the Department of Social Work and Psychology?

2. If the answer to the 1st interrogatory is 'yes', did the Defendant tape the conversation between him and Dr Vasoo?

3. When Dr Vasoo asked the Defendant if their conversation was being tape recorded by the Defendant, did the Defendant deny that he was tape-recording their conversation?

4. Did the Defendant also tape record an earlier conversation between the Defendant, Dr Vasoo and a third party without first informing Dr Vasoo and the third party that he was tape recording their conversation?

In 1986, it was recorded that Mr Lee had used a tape recording of a Law Society meeting for a Parliamentary Select Committee hearing convened to debate the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act. If he considers his own action of taping the conversations of others as good and right then he cannot possibly accuse Dr Chee of being “a fraud, a liar and a cheat” for doing what exactly what Mr Lee himself did. For this reason, Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee the following:

1. In the 1986 there was an extraordinary general meeting of the Law Society to discuss the Legal Profession (Amendment) bill. Did the Plaintiff, through the ISD or any other means, tape them proceedings of the meeting?

2. If the answer to the above interrogatory is ‘yes’, was it done with the knowledge and consent of the participants of that meeting?

3. Did the Plaintiff cite some of the words that were spoken at the Law Society meeting mentioned inminterrogatory 1 during the Select Committee hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill in 1986?

4. When asked how the Plaintiff knew about what was said at the Law Society meeting mentioned in interrogatory 1, did the Plaintiff say the words (or words to that effect): “In the age of the tape recorder, you want to know how I am able to get a transcript of what you said?”

Misuse of funds

Mr Lee also says that Dr Chee had misused his NUS research funds, proving that Dr Chee was a fraud, a liar and a cheat. In order to prove his case, Mr Lee wanted Dr Chee to answer questions regarding Dr Chee’s use of research funds to send his wife’s doctoral thesis to the US, and his claims for taxi fares.

In the same principle as the situation regarding the surreptitious tape-recording, Dr Chee argues that he cannot be any of those things that Mr Lee has accused him of if Mr Lee has committed similar acts but considers them legitimate and right. For example Mr Lee asks his press secretary (who is a civil servant and whose salary is paid for by the state) to issue statements on his behalf in the defamation lawsuits which he has taken out in his personal capacity. Such being the case can he then accuse Dr Chee of being a fraud, a liar and a cheat for using NUS funds for personal benefit (an accusation, by the way, that Dr Chee flatly denies)? The following are some of the questions that Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee to answer vis-à-vis the matter of misusing funds:

1. Did the Plaintiff direct his press secretary Yeong Yoon Ying to issue a press statement that carried the Plaintiffs remarks that the Defendant was misleading the public in an article published in the Straits Times on 16 September 2004?

2. Did the Plaintiff direct his staff to write and issue press statements for him in matters relating to the defamation lawsuits that the Plaintiff brought against J. B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong?

3. Did the Plaintiff use his office hours to do work on the lawsuits such as consulting his lawyers and writing his affidavits?

4. When the Plaintiff attended court on 6 September 2004 did he apply for leave for the time he was in court?

5. When he traveled to court on 6 September 2004, did he travel in the state car that was assigned to him?

6. During the days he attended court with regards to other defamation lawsuits that he had taken, did the Plaintiff apply for leave? Did he travel to court in the state car that was assigned to him?

7. When the Plaintiff chartered a Singapore Airlines flight from London to Singapore to ferry his wife who had suffered a stroke, did the Plaintiff and/or his wife pay for the expenses of the flight?

8. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 7, for which part of the flight’s expenses did the Plaintiff and/or his wife pay?

9. If the answer is ‘no’ to interrogatory 7, who paid for the flight’s expenses?

Indonesia loan

Mr Lee cited the Indonesia-loan incident to justify
his comments. Mr Lee’s and Mr Goh Chok Tong’s lawsuits
were awarded to the two former prime minister without
Dr Chee being given a trial. Now, Dr Chee wants Mr Lee
to answer the questions below regarding the matter:

1. Why was the loan to Indonesia not announced to Singaporeans when it was first made to the Suharto government?

2. Apart from the US$5 billion that Singapore pledged to loan to Indonesia for balance of payments support, did Singapore make a pledge of an initial US$5 billion (which could be increased as necessary) to buy the rupiah?

3. Is the Plaintiff aware that in 1997 Bank Indonesia (BI) was reported to be “negotiating with Singapore on the use of the balance of US$5 billion currently earmarked for rupiah market intervention” in an article in the Business Times entitled ‘Indonmstocks edge up as investors await loan news’ publishedmon 27 November 1997.

4. Is the Plaintiff aware that BI said it was talking to Singapore authorities on whether the funds earmarked for buying the rupiah could be used for the “development of small scale businesses, cooperatives, labour-intensive industries and exports”?

5. Did the Singapore Government reply to the enquiries raised by BI mentioned in interrogatory 4?

6. Did the Singapore Government inform the public about the enquiries made by BI in interrogatory 4 and its response, if any?

Overseas trips

Mr Lee has argued that Dr Chee’s numerous trips overseas means that Dr Chee is being manipulated by foreigners and therefore a flawed character. He has asked Dr Chee questions like “How much did each of these trips cost?” and “Who paid for each of these trips?” to support his contention.

In return Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee the questions below to in order to show that just because one accepts invitations and awards from overseas (as Mr Lee has done), it doesn’t mean that one is manipulated by foreigners:

1. Did the Plaintiff go to the US to receive the ‘Architect of the New Century’ award from the Nixon Centre in 1996?

2. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 1:



1. How much did the trip cost?
2. Who paid for the trip?
3. Apart from the travel expenses, who paid for the daily expenses for the Plaintiff?

3. Over and above this award, did the Plaintiff make any other trips to receive any other awards or honorary degrees from institutions in other countries?

4. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 1:


1. How much did each of these trips cost?
2. Who paid for the trips?
3. Apart from the travel expenses, who paid for the daily expenses for the Plaintiff during these trips?
5. Is the Plaintiff involved with the governing bodies of Chrysler-Daimler, JP Morgan and Total?
6. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, what are these governing bodies and what responsibilities/duties are these bodies entrusted with?
7. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, what position does the Plaintiff hold in these governing bodies?
8. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, does he attend any of the meetings of the governing bodies of these corporations?
9. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 8, where are these meetings held, how often does he attend them, and who pays for the travel and other expenses?
10. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, did or does the Plaintiff receive any salary, remuneration, income, gifts, reimbursements, form of compensation, financial or otherwise, from these companies?

Acquisition of Optus

Mr Lee also accuses Dr Chee of being a flawed character just because Dr Chee advised against the acquisition of Optus, the Australian telecommunications company by Singtel, which is run by his son, Hsien Yang. Mr Lee asked Dr Chee “What ‘political interests’ did the Defendant [Dr Chee] believe Singapore Telecoms had in the acquisition of Optus amd what is the basis of that belief?” To answer Mr Lee’s questions, Dr Chee needed information from the Minister Mentor:

1. Does SingTel use its infrastructure and services for surveillance on opposition parties and/or its members?
2. Does SingTel use its infrastructure and services for surveillance on Singaporeans whom the PAP considers as its critics or dissidents?

Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the US

Along similar lines, Mr Lee has said that Dr Chee’s opposition to the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is another reason why he says that Dr Chee is a flawed character. Again, in order for Dr Chee to prove that Mr Lee is not justified in his comments the SDP secretary-general wants Mr Lee to answer these questions:

1. Is Batam included in the USSFTA?
2. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 36, why is Batam (which is not part of Singapore or the US) included under the USSFTA? [Through a program called the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI) electronics components from these islands will count as Singaporean content under the USSFTA, even though the Indonesian island is not subject to the labor and environmental provisions of the agreement. The real purpose of the initiative seems to be facilitating cheap offshore production using Indonesian low-wage sweatshops for export into the US. How does this benefit Singaporean workers?]
3. Did the Plaintiff or the Singapore Government seek the assistance of US corporations to lobby the US Congress to pass the USSFTA?
4. Did the Singapore Government ensure that Singaporean workers’ rights and interests are protected under the USSFTA?
5. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 4, wherein the USSSFTA is this stated and how will theprotection of Singaporean workers be enforced?

Did the Singapore government organise any public forums or hearings to solicit the feedback of Singaporeans on the USSFTA when it was being negotiated?

Zuco's Blog

Just found another blog by a Singaporean ranting about anything and everything. It's an interesting read and hopefully from time to time the writer points that devilish wit at Singaporean issues. Go have a quick look at the article on Kafkaesque angst. 

Chee's wants MM Lee to answer interrogatories - Part I

 


From: The Optical
Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 12:51 am
Subject: Chee Soon Juan's Letter & Questions for Lee Kuan Yew, Part 1

The following was emailed to us by the Singapore
Democratic Party for dissemination.

We will post Part II in a day or two.

Editor
TheOptical
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chee's wants MM Lee to answer interrogatories - Part I

Dr Chee Soon Juan has sued Mr Lee Kuan Yew for calling him a fraud, a liar and a cheat, a dishonest person, a flawed character and a political gangster.

Dr Chee’s suit was dismissed yesterday by the courts because the SDP secretary-general refused to answer the interrogatories Lee Kuan Yew had served on him.

Interrogatories are questions one party can ask of the other in order to confirm or clarify facts and opinions. Mr Lee applied to the courts to require Dr Chee to answer a total of 96 interrogatories. The courts have agreed with Mr Lee that all his questions are relevant and ordered Dr Chee to reply to all of them, failing which his case against the MM will be dismissed.

In return Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee to answer his questions. In addition, Dr Chee has written to Mr Lee (see letter below) to answer the questions regardless of whether the courts allowed them or not. This is because Dr Chee’s questions relate directly to MrLee's own conduct on which the SDP secretary-general wanted to rely on in order to prove his case. Dr Chee has stipulated that he will answer Mr Lee's interrogatories if and only if the MM agrees to answer his. Mr Lee refused. Part I of Dr Chee's interrogatories to the MM are appended following the letter below.

21 February 2005

Mr Lee Kuan Yew
Minister Mentor
Annexe, Istana

Singapore

Dear Sir,

As you know the case regarding my suit against you has come to the stage of interrogatories. You have asked a total of 96 questions in your interrogatories to me, and you have asked the courts to dismiss my suit should I fail to answer them by 28 February 2005.

I too have taken an application for a hearing to require you to answer my interrogatories. I note that you have instructed your counsel to oppose my application. In other words, you do not want to answer my interrogatories to you. You are aware that I have stated that while I have no problems in answering your questions, I will do it under one and only one condition: That you do the same for my interrogatories to you. If you fail to do so, I give you notice that I will not respond to your interrogatories.

This will obviously result in my action against you being dismissed. I am willing to sacrifice this for one simple reason: As much as you would like to hold me responsible for my actions hence yourinterrogatories to me, you must be held accountable for yours.

As you can see, the questions are straightforward with most of them requiring simple 'yes' or 'no' answers. They are crucial to my proving the case against you. I hope that you will not hide behind the legal system and avoid answering my questions. If you do, it will be yet another indication that you continue to avoid facing me in court. In the interest of getting to the bottom of the entire matter, I am prepared to answer all of your interrogatories. I only hope that you will not be diffident in answering mine.

As my application to serve the interrogatories on you will be heard on 25 February 2005, please let me have your response by 23 February 2005. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan---------------------------------------------------------------
Interrogatories from Dr Chee Soon Juan to Mr Lee Kuan
Yew, click the image to continue reading the detailed questions...

I have saved the questions for my own use here...

Harry's Dead Body

Has Harry finally given the reigns over to someone else.? In the past the government insisted it never would happen. "Over my dead body" is how Singapore's founding leader, Lee Kuan Yew, once put it, rejecting gambling as an affront to the Singaporean ethic of hard work and clean living.

 

Colonial Mentality

The interesting read below on a perceived colonial mentality in Singapore is a topic which is trying to work out if and then why Singaporeans have an inferiority complex. Having lived in Singapore the inferiority complex might stem from being removed from Malaysia after the British left Singapore. And as for white people being at the end of 'positive' discrimination I would have to say 'yes' it does happen. In the working environment there appeared to be a sense of 'whites' getting away with speaking their mind and airing their opinions. Even if those opinions ran contrary to the views or opinions of the management. I felt I could say what I wanted, and that no one would pay a blind bit of notice. Just another angmoh letting off steam, just ignore him, no point voicing your opinion, no one cares, nothing will change anyway, so no point in getting involved.

From Welcome to Rebrab Moor

 

The disappointing aspect is that the public authorities, rather than striving to counter such mentalities, are actually similarly repressed and subjugated by a colonial mentality. Indeed, white people in locally produced TV dramas are always portrayed as the bosses, classy and well-spoken people. The foreign talent policy is one that takes the policy that foreign ang mos are naturally more talented than our local populace and should be afforded better opportunities than locals.
So how do we rid ourselves of such an unhealthy inferiority complex, if it even exists? It is not an easy task, and to do so one must consciously strive towards achieving this aim. Of course, mixing with whites will definitely help us get along better, but while doing so, we must consciously treat them as if we are treating a fellow non-white Singaporean, such as NOT faking an accent (There is a difference between speaking clearly and putting on a fake accent). Non offensive jokes with regard to a person's colour or race may be seemingly good icebreakers but they actually reinforce stereotypical thinking and hence colonial mentalities. We must realise that every individual is unique, is human, subject to similar desires, feelings and failings, regardless of colour, and thereby treating every person for what they are rather than for what we preconceive them to be.
It seems easy now in writing, but I dare say virtually every Singaporean has been at one time or another been too guilty of being too accommodating, to the extent of actually being subjugated to their will/culture, or too xenophobic, to the extent of generalising all white people as 'bad guys with bad intents'.

Continue reading via the screenshot link...or the header for this article or the link above.

Singapore's High Court Throws Out Suit

It is very strange that the use of lawsuits has been so successful for the members of the PAP and yet the dwindling opposition is unable to pursue such lawsuits for fear of bankruptcy. Has the Peoples Action Party ever lost a law suit? Again it really does highlight the lack of autonomy of between the executive, legislature and judiciary in Singapore. It's as if the cards are always in the PAP's favour, its as if the deck has been tampered with. Or is it a sample case of the opposition not having enough money to get into the game? The PAP has the funds to pursue such expensive defamation lawsuits. Wasn't the initial accusation from Chee something to do with the allocation of government funds? And funnily enough Chee's case is thrown out because Chee has not stated where his money comes from. It's all getting surreal and reads like an extract from Kafka's 'The Trial'.

Singapore's High Court on Tuesday threw out the suit after Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, failed to answer questions from the court about the source of his funding, The Straits Times newspaper said. The case was dropped because Chee "did not file an affidavit as requested on Feb. 28," a court official said Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

 

A Singaporean Star?

The link below contains language of a sexual nature yet no images. A recent article in the telegraph asked if anyone could name a famous Singaporean star. I believe I have found one. However I am not so sure that all Singaporeans would agree or like to be associated with such activity. Or that the population of planet earth would relate to pornography as art. The link itself is clean of pornographic images and refers to a documantary made about Annabel Chong. Are Singaporeans outraged by her transgression of Singapore's Elizabethan value system? 

The Singapore Gamble: Debating the Casino Proposal

I first saw this on James Gomez.


The Workers' Party will hold a Public Consultation Exercise on the proposal for a casino in Singapore. It will be held on Saturday, 5th March 2005 from 2 pm - 5pm at the Workers’ Party Headquarters, 216-G Syed Alwi Road, #02-03, Singapore 207799.

Thursday, 03 February 2005

The Singapore Government has announced a Request for Concepts to be submitted by end February 2005 for an Integrated Resort that will feature a casino to be located in Singapore. This call has been positioned as part of a feasibility study to consider allowing a casino to operate in Singapore.

Whether a casino will be eventually allowed to operate is said to be still undecided. Arguments from economic benefits arising for tourism to demerits of social fallout caused by gaming have been put forward by many Singaporeans. Some of these discussions have even taken the form of an online petition against the casino proposal.

The Workers' Party aims to debate the issue in Parliament and is convening a Public Consultation Exercise to invite members of the public to put forward the views. These views will be harnessed and form part of the viewpoints considered by the Workers’ Party in formulating its policy position on the casino and gambling in general.

This Public Consultation Exercise is a unique opportunity for Singaporeans to be involved in policy formulation. They will have an opportunity to air their viewpoints on the type Singapore we and our children want to grow up in.

Further details of the activity and other information can be obtained from www.wp.org.sg.

The Workers' Party, in the meantime, is keen to solicit views on the Casino Proposal. Members of the public are invited to send their views to the Party via e-mail at pcc@wp.org.sg or by regular mail to: PO Box 15, Toa Payoh Central Post Office, Singapore 913101.

I would have posted this a lot earlier if I had found it earlier.

Masalah Melayu di Singapura: The continuous strive to “succeed”

If Malays have achieved well already as Goh in fact acknowledged in his speech then why does he point out this difference? The underachievement’ of Malays has to be constantly remembered, or more precisely re-created. Thus, in his speech, Goh sets new targets for Malays, such as the acquisition of skills in new growth areas as globalisation accelerates the pace of economic change.
Will this end? Until Malays in Singapore can free themselves from their habitual way of perceiving jaya (success) and ubah sikap (change attitude), they will always function as the inevitable element of difference that validates the majority within Singapore.
by Yasuko Kobayashi

 

Links to a few articles on the 'race' issue.
Why are we so afraid of the 'R' words?

They want to turn the flowers down, go ahead.I mean, free expression as long as you don't get into race and religion and don't start a riot.