Singabloodypore

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Lee Kuan Yew, 84-year-old founder of modern Singapore, has undergone successful treatment for an abnormal heart rhythm at a local hospital, his press secretary said on Saturday.

"He is still in the hospital," Yeong Yoon Ying told Reuters, adding that he would remain under observation for the time being.

It was the first time that Lee has suffered from the complaint, known medically as "atrial flutter", Yeong said.

Lee is credited with transforming Singapore from a swampy Third World seaport into a First World financial dynamo. He was Singapore's first prime minister for 31 years until 1990.

He remains deeply involved in Singapore politics, where his party has been dominant for more than 40 years. He now holds the advisory post of minister mentor in the cabinet of his son, Lee Hsien Loong, 56, who was appointed prime minister in 2004.

WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2008
Singapore Democrats

The seizure of the video One Nation Under Lee by the Government will be raised in Geneva this Friday, 12 Sep 08, during the 9th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Forum-Asia, a regional human rights group, will cite the case along with other human rights violations in the region when it is called to make representation before the UN Council. Apart from the matter of the video seizure, Forum-Asia will also bring up the prosecution of activists for taking part in peaceful protests in Singapore.

In May this year officials of the Media Development Authority gate-crashed a private screening of the video and demanded that the film be handed over (watch video of the incident here). They said that the video did not have a certificate of approval.

Despite the seizure, the video has since been uploaded on YouTube as well as Google. The YouTube account alone has received 27,300 views.

Below is Forum-Asia's text on Singapore:

...although the [Singapore] government has announced its rules to allow outdoor demonstrations (restricted to the Speaker's Corner), there have been events this year that nevertheless underline a restrictive environment in which human rights defenders are not able to enjoy the freedom of expression and opinion and the freedom to be informed.

In May 2008, a private film screening of One Nation Under Lee was interrupted by representatives from the Media Development Authority who demanded that organisers of the screening hand over the film.

They cited the Films Act which states that it is an offence to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate. This provision therefore makes almost all Singaporeans hosting private screenings of private events violators of the said Act.

The government has also charged more than 20 activists for taking part in various activities such as peaceful protests and distributing flyers.

Readers can follow the live webcast of events at the session at http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp.

One Nation Under Lee is also the subject at the Freedom Film Fest 2008 in Malaysia. It was screened in Penang last weekend and will be screened in Johor Baru this Saturday, 13 Sep, at 4:30 pm.

Malaysia's premier showcase of human rights films will travel to Johor Bahru this weekend. It will be the closest location by which Singaporeans can watch One Nation Under Lee in a public space. Director Seelan Palay will be present at the post-screening Q&A session.

Venue: Tropical Inn
Address: 15 Jalan Gereja, Johor Bahru
Dates: 12 to 14 Sept 2008
Time: 11am till 10pm
Admission is FREE

Jul 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition

A rare slip-up in court by Singapore’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew

MEMBERS of Singapore’s government are notorious sticklers for legal exactitude. So it has been interesting to watch the reaction after the country’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew—a British-trained lawyer before he became a politician—gave inaccurate testimony in the trial of two opposition leaders.

In May Mr Lee testified in a hearing to decide damages against Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, for defaming the former prime minister and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister himself. Mr Lee senior claimed that after the London-based International Bar Association (IBA) held its annual conference in Singapore last October, its president sent a letter to the Law Society of Singapore praising the country’s justice system. It has since emerged that there was no such laudatory letter.

Mr Chee (who along with his sister was briefly jailed for contempt for accusing the judge in his case of bias) tried unsuccessfully to have the hearing reconvened in the light of Mr Lee’s incorrect testimony. Mr Lee’s counsel, Davinder Singh, wrote to the court on July 9th admitting that his client was wrong about the letter but noting that the IBA’s president, Fernando Pombo, had praised Singapore’s “outstanding judiciary” in a speech at the start of the conference. Mr Singh argues that what matters is that the IBA did praise Singaporean justice, not whether it did so in a speech or a letter. Mr Chee says there is a difference: the speech was made before the conference, where criticisms of the justice system were aired. Mr Lee was claiming, in effect, that the IBA was still impressed after this.

By coincidence, on July 9th the IBA’s Human Rights Institute issued a report criticising the use of defamation suits by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to silence the opposition and the press, and expressing concerns about the independence and impartiality of Singapore’s judges. The law ministry has rejected the IBA’s report, pointing out that Singapore’s legal system has won excellent ratings in other international surveys. Indeed, in cases not involving the country’s leaders, there is no dispute about its quality. As for the IBA’s worries about cases involving PAP figures, the law ministry claims that the IBA failed to substantiate its “grave” allegations with evidence, though its report does discuss several worrying cases.

America’s State Department, which is in rather less danger of being sued by the PAP than are the opposition or newspapers, has expressed concern about judicial independence in political cases in Singapore. In its latest human-rights report, in March, the department noted that the PAP’s consistent success in defamation suits against critics “led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.”

According to the Straits Times newspaper, Mr Lee on July 11th accused human-rights organisations of “a conspiracy to do us in”. He said that they saw that Russia and China had been studying Singapore’s success, and hence regarded it as a threat. Mr Lee and the government argue that doing things their way has made Singapore prosperous, orderly and corruption-free, and has earned international respect. The threat of defamation proceedings may make opposition politicians weigh their words more carefully than they do elsewhere. But Singaporean voters continue to buy the PAP’s argument that such constraints are a price worth paying—so far.

[A few weeks ago the argument in court was slightly different ... “Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you [Dr Chee] were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there.

I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary - "…” Minister Mentor.]

Chris Merritt | July 04, 2008

AFTER succeeding in his latest defamation action against opposition politicians, former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has turned his attention to a visiting US lawyer who has criticised Mr Lee on the internet.

The latest target is California lawyer Gopalan Nair, a former Singapore citizen, who dared Mr Lee to take action over a critical posting on his internet blog.

Soon after the posting appeared, Mr Nair was arrested and held in solitary confinement for several days.

Although a US citizen since 2005, Mr Nair was in Singapore to observe Mr Lee's defamation action against Chee Soon Juan, who heads the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.

The final posting on his blog before his arrest.

Mr Nair was arrested on May 31 and, on June 2, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang, who was presiding at the Chee trial.

He was released on June 5 and charged on June 12 with insulting another judge over an incident that took place in 2006.

When he was in prison Mr Nair was kept in a cell that was illuminated around the clock.

He had no bedding and had to sleep on the ground.

Mr Nair's case is due to go to trial this month.

Dr Chee has been released from prison after serving 11 days for scandalising the court during his cross-examination of Mr Lee.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has issued a statement expressing its concern over Mr Nair's treatment.

"Singapore's detention of Gopalan Nair for public comments about such a highly politicised case is completely unwarranted," the committee's Asia program co-ordinator Bob Dietz said.

Breaking news: IBA says it did not send letter that LKY testified it did
Wednesday, 02 July 2008
Singapore Democrats

In the recent defamation suit hearing to assess damages, Mr Lee Kuan Yew testified in court that the President of the International Bar Association (IBA) had written to the Law Society of Singapore praising the judiciary here.

This letter was apparently written following the organisation's annual conference held in Singapore in September last year.

The following is what Mr Lee said in court:

"Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you [Dr Chee] were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there.

I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary - " (see here also)

Tuesday, 01 July 2008
Singapore Democrats

To: The Wall Street Journal

I refer to the letter by Mr Lee Kuan Yew's press secretary (Two Views of Freedom of Speech and Law in Singapore, June 30, 2008) in which she quoted me as calling, in open court, "Singapore leaders 'murderers, robbers, child molesters' and 'rapists'."

The outrageousness of Madam Yeong's lie borders on the comedic. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, or his counsel, is in possession of court transcripts and audio-recordings that would show whether I had uttered those words. He must now produce the part of the transcript that quotes me saying those words or he risks destroying his own credibility.

Mr Lee and his prime minister son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, sued the Singapore Democratic Party and its executive members for defamation over an article we published in our party newsletter criticising the non-transparent and non-accountable manner in which Singapore was run.

The Lees obtained summary judgment from the courts despite our defence in which we cited disputes of fact and law. In other words, there were triable issues. The summary judgment meant that we were found guilty without given the chance to defend ourselves, call for witnesses and cross-examine the plaintiffs.

Mdm Yeong also says that "Singapore upholds free speech." Yes, and Mr Mugabe has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Your readers might care to know that I have been repeatedly convicted and imprisoned for speaking in public and I face several more such charges. Seventeen of my associates have been charged for conducting a protest against the raising of prices by the Singapore government.

It is also noteworthy that Freedom House stated: “Singapore citizens cannot change their government democratically."

We are not advocating a Western- or Asian-style of democracy. We want a democracy based on universal principles as enshrined in the Singapore Constitution and United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

By the way, Mr Lee sued us in his personal capacity. Why is he using Mdm Yeong, a civil servant, to write the letter on his behalf?

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

The case marks the first time any leader of the ruling People's Action Party has been cross-examined by a political opponent in open court.

A Singaporean Movie Production about LEE Kuan Yew's famiLEE LEEgime and how the fighters are fighting against this lame bastard's oppressive totalitarian rule.

"One Nation Under Lee" Screening Pt 1

"One Nation Under Lee" Screening Pt 2


Saturday, 17 May 2008
Singapore Democrats

Officials from the Media Development Authority (MDA) barged in on a private screening of a film entitled One Nation Under Lee and demanded that the organisers hand over the DVD.

The 45-minute movie is critical narration of how Mr Lee Kuan Yew rode to power championing democracy and then using it to consolidate his power by crush his opponents and the media.

Halfway through the screening which took place at the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel this afternoon, three officers from the MDA burst in and said that the screening was an offence.

A group of activists then asked them on what authority did they have to insist on stopping the screening as it was a private event, not unlike, for example, a wedding where videos of the betrothed are played for guests.

The gatecrashers, comprising of assistant director Mr Tan Chiu Kee, Mr Ahmad Kasbari and Ms Padmamuthu, cited the Films Act which states that "it is an offence to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate." This would make almost all Singaporeans violators of the Act.

After a lengthy exchange the Master of Ceremonies, Mr Chia Ti Lik, allowed the three into the hall. The crowd burst into sacrcastic applause and the officers responded with sheepish smiles. The police at one stage arrived but left whithout doing much.

"Please hand over the film," Mr Tan demanded.

"Please come up to the front, introduce yourselves and you can have it," the MC invited.