Signup
LoginWhat did Chees ask Lees during cross examination?
19 posts
-
-
Pl forgive me open a new thread.
This tell forumers the questions raised in the cross exam.
SDP members wearing T shirt showing kangaroo head,a
Judge gown and a hammer.
tuesday 27.05.2008,They even waiting just outside court room.
possibel cited for contempt of court?
A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial or Drumhead trial, is a sham legal proceeding or court. Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny due process in the name of expediency. The outcome of such a trial is essentially made in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
Lucky,they are not allowed into court for no--collar.
what if Judge saw it?
See what topics that CSJ and CSC put to LKY.
It is not 100% word by word records.
The essence are here.
Pl bear in mind the purpose of this hearing is to
determine the damages ,if any,should be awarded to Lees.
Cross exam should be restricted to this purposes.
But Chees turned court room as stage of GE rally!!
i appeal once agin to release the full transcript and video records to
the public .
Chees and Ravi just brought up many things to establish
that intergrity of Lees are not so high.
From NKF,HDB hidden building cost,bad hole like operations of GIC and
Temasek,use of CPF money and people cant use the CPF,Mas Selemat..
My question is :Can Chees ask better questions within the
frame of the hearing ie allowed by Judge, and at the same time,
Chees can 'shot'at Lees?
I dunt know if Jaya could come out with better questions
during the past 3 days hearing.What a waste for Opposition
Parties and people in SG!!We have lost a chance to watch
a better Defamation and the City drama!!
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
1.SPH PUBLISH CSJ letter's,today p H15 Forum.3 column x 14 cm
Chee rebuts letter by ex-head of M'sian TI
30.05.2008
2.Chee failed Opposition and many Opposition--Singaporeans
He fought for many years to cross exam Lees.
But he was late in court,again ,on Day 2!LHL just had to wait for him
in witness dock from 9.58 am.
The problems of Opposition in SG were and still are
they cant do a simple task like filling a right form in GE and submit it
at the right place and at the right time.Like Gomez,just forgot
to submit and accused low rank civil servants!!
How can i trust my future in CSJ when he could not arrive
on time for a important appointment?
3.What did CSJ ask LKY on Day 2,27 May 2008?
C=CSJ,O=CSC,K=LKY,S=Singh,J=Judge,R=Ravi
(inside this is my writing to explain)
It is not 100% word by word or 100% topics records.But the essence are here.
Pl dunt sue or shoot me if i am right or wrong.
i want u to see what topics Chees and Ravi asked LKY.
Then u can know why almost all questions disallowed by Judge.
12.55 pm
R asked when K know the ''defamatory article'' ,why K started the sue
close to GE and why K asked lawyer represent K!
Yes R called it ''defamatory article''.
R quoted S submission,claiming this case ''greatest defamtion''.
K- lawyers use graphic words,...good lawyers' jobs,in his previous
defamtion cases with Jayareratam,his QC quote Shakespeare.
R then quoted:''Never chase a lie..."and asked K opinions.
K explained,as u read from media,why he had to chased lies.
K used hands gesture to put across his points.
K- lies must be exposed
0105 pm
R asked why K not pursed the internet postings about K
k--current laws of cyberway inadequate,K mentioned Malaysia NOW
web site
R--govamen prepare tolerate internet postings
K--those in print and with names will be followed up..
R--why k allowed internet postings
S--Lees not to sue others is irrelevant
k--laws cant capture in cyberway.If can capture,then purse.
R--do u hold CSJ in any esteem?sorry,i rephrase it.
do u consider he is a man to be believed?
k---he is liar ,cheat...a psycho bar after asking few doctors.
O--asked John Tan shall be allowed sit after Chees to take note.
Judge refused but later allowed .
R asked K about C credibility.
K---Is it C credibilty so low that i shall ignore him totally?
R asked % of votes of SDP in Sembawang.20%.
R----only 20% believed what C said.
K---even 5 % voted,very important.
R--sensitive to unfair,critism,nail every life in court
K--K reminded R to ask relevant questions,only 2 hours.U are wasting
the time of court.
R --if irrelevant ,court would stop.
R ---consider mediation
K--dunt believe psycho bar
R--suffer any damages of reputation?
K---80% vote my intergerity if poll carried out.
R---sue in personal capacity?(u can read from news)
K--may i suggest..
R----stop Mr Lee suggestion.Plantiff has no right to suggest.
Judge ruled in favour of R.
R---abuse of legal system,Chees political alliance,cause against gavaman,
R--stopped
K---u are run out of question.0126 pm.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
CSJ cross exam Lee
from 0128 pm
C--we meet at last.(K show suprise)
C--quoted K said previously that ''If u defame me(LKY),u can ask any question
about me in court'',u avoid me...
k--hearing for quantum of damages,not liablity
C--intended one and half days,why restriced to 2 hour
why come to court,game players here,hide bebind counsel,
C then asked k not to be interupted by S.
(S objected to almost all questions put by R)
K---people here can see how C belittle R
C--(left hand in waist,fold 2 arms in front)
C---run NKF w/o transparency,much importtant than dollar and cents
S ---we alrdy passed stage of liablity.CSJ did not give defense and materials
and walk away.
K--i will help court..Transpancy International..award
(pl read news,all there lah)
(C challenged K to answer even Judge disallowed the questions.
It seem this ex---lawyer LKY want to speak.But his counsel Singh stood
up to object already.LKY of course respect his SC.u can say
he hide behind Singh.)
K---(he gave a brief National Education lesson to C
how SG has less than 100 million to currently over 300 billion.
K asid he will not reveal assests in GIC and Temasek.
300 b is estimated by other.C interuppted.
K said ''Let me finish''
0205C--everythings u have done,closr down medias,GRC..
C---C asked K back in court tomorrow(wednesday)
C--send police to stage during GE,Freedom House:''very hard to change
SG gavaman democratically''
K---(k reminded C to ask meat questions.
S---3 rd time to remind only get 2 hours.
C---i dunt hate u(LKY)
C----Ex Director of International Bar Association ...Many delegates
left SG unhappy that the conference held in here.
K--World Bank
C--is it the same World Bank that accredited NGO's
came to SG but SG refused some.
K---SG no need to comply with every international organsiation
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
0225 pm
C--recent declassfied document in London,(former ISD detainee
and oppostoion leader )Lim Ching Siong.K came to power
and political opponents(u can read SDP site)
C---(he challenged LKY)u will initiate full and frank investigations into
all ISD detention.
C--u use Press Secretary to issue press statement
(read news lah,all there for this topics)
C--i have 3 children,sued 3 times,cant concentrate in political
works,u abuse of laws,refuse to play games,No equal opportunity
for Ruling and Oppostion Parties.
I sell newspaper and jailed.
K---rules in UK and Us,dunt become a bankrupt
S---we tired of political speech,sill speech.
C--2 ways of gaining poltical powers.
1 is Constitutional means,2 is by violents and illegally,are u up for free and..
fight.
K--u are hinder Opposition Party,SDP under Chiam,won 3 seats,
then SDP de facto Opposition leader.You destory SDP.WP is Opposition leader.
K--u are hinder Opposition Party,SDP under Chiam,won 3 seats,
then SDP de facto Opposition leader.You destory SDP.WP is Opposition leader.
Chiam and Loh ,both won seat and not sued for defamations.
You lost succedly.
c--freedom of speech and assembly
c--aloow 5 people assembly
K--rules existed before PAP...
C--u control the press
0245 pm
Judge--Court taken note of CDSJ conduct.I repeat many times
...irrelevant questions..
K---(NE lesson resumed)30 % students in teritary,40 % in Poly,20%
in ITE,HDB house,health,court room,Is it better off than 1959?
Real test,not u say or i say....(read news again)
C--50% of young people not patrotic to SG.
have u failed ,Mr Lee?
K--Final test are they leave permantly.
Top 20% people can go to English speaking countries
(K then advise NGO help CSJ discharge of bankcruptcy and campian again)
K---no gavaman in any country has duty to build Opposition.
LKY told CSJ he had a better chance than Chaim and Loh if he can build up his credibility.
Press and public in court can see how C abuse of court.
Judge in charge,gave full opportunity...
0254 pm
Judge---one minute more.If u follow this line of questions,
do it outside my court room.
C--Do u believe public allowed to have free say in running
of country?
0256
Singh looked at the clock at back of court.
I think he 'remind'Judge the time is up.(Always respect Judge
in charge)
K--My reputation 50 plus years,49 years ruling party plus 4 and half
as Opposition Party,mixtures of good and bad
My job is done..(I Think this last question is totally irrelevant.
Judge just gave LAST chance to CSJ and also let LKY aired his view.
He looked want to talk more!!)
CSC---I demand cross exam LKY.
Singh--Object.they should allot time among themselves.
(so u see.CSJ spent one and half hours out of 2 hours to cross exam
LKY.what a PhD,but not in laws!!)
Judge---10 minutes allowed.
0259pm
CSC--how many as MM?
K---3 or 4 years.as data bank for ministers.
from 1952 as lawyers for Unions,knowing 56 years of SG and its people,
SG is a place not to be independent
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
CSC----do u watch TV?(K says yes)
Do u watch your own interviews.
K says not specially.Earlier years ,yes.Then,K let it pass.
K---I know what i had said.
CSC--then u are familiar with what u say?
CSC---will u watch a documentary ,not come from your mind?(objection)
(There are many objections.I dunt put here)
CSC---recently there is one about u control media
and political..
Name of video:ONE NATION UNDER LEE.Are u aware?
(u can read fr SDP site of screening of this get troubles..)
CSC----u are not interviewed and not from your mind.
Singh---what is the question?
CSC---documentary about intergrity,u come to power...
Singh---..of rumors
CSC---do u want a copy of the video?
K---i dunt need to be given...Some body will give me a summary...
CSC---are u still in charge of SG?
K--I am not.Otherwise,how can i attend conference in London,
Tokyo,
not in charge,therefore,i have time.
CSC___Mas selemat escaped...
Singh----10 mins done.Very sad.
Judeg---one last question
0311pm
CSC---dictator's skill to govern SG?
0314
JUDGE---10 MINS UP.
LKY released from witness stand
Singh----affitdavit and ACIE not challenged.4 reporters
will not be called as witenss to testify.Their affitdavit
will not be included as evidences.
Judge order court adjourned to 4.30pm same day.
-
-
-
(lion note:Chees started question LHL from 11pm,
27 May 2008,Day 2 of 3 days hearings,after Judge imposed cross
exam time limit to 12.00 noon same day.Singh complained to court
that in Day 1,Chee asked too many irrelevant question.
Chees told court few times that they would asked questions.
If court ruled questions irrelevant,they would move on.
Chees requested court let them said the questions in full.
I think Chees tactics just to state political topics in court
to shame Lees.CPF,HDB,GIC.Temasek etc.They dunt intend
to cross exam Lees on the assessment of damages.)
start of quote
Transcript excerpts of Lees vs Chees
http://sgfrag.net/?p=3616
Posted by Buzz on June 1st, 2008Chee (to Lee Hsien Loong): Would you refer to pg 192 of your AEIC, para 3 and read it to us.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong starts reading. Just before he gets to the words he uttered about fixing the opposition and buying over his supporters, Mr Davinder Singh stands up.(lion note:u see how cooperative our PM was ,just do what CSJ asked him to do in court.But LHL started waiting for Chees from 10.58 am inside Witness Stand . Chees arrived at 10.05am)
Singh: Objection, Your Honour.
Judge: I’ll read it.
Chee: Mr Lee, you read it.
Judge: Dr Chee please tell us the relevance.
Chee: This paragraph will show it’s true of him -
Judge Move on, the question is disallowed.
Chee: He has used words like “fix” and “buy votes”. He’s here to tell me that his reputation is based on so much. I’m here to demolish it, when he buys votes -
Judge: Disallowed.
Chee: Let it be recorded then. Mr Lee, come out and don’t hide behind your counsel. You have every opportunity to answer the questions. You allow your counsel to cover -
Singh: Objection, Your Honour.
Judge: Court has taken note of Dr Chee’s conduct.
(lion note:Should Ravi remind Chee behave in court after this warning?)
Chee: Mr Lee, please refer to pg 39 of your AEIC sub-heading “lack of transparency.” Do you agree with the last line and last paragraph that the GIC operates in secrecy?
Singh: Objection. Dr Chee is seeking to reopen the issue. This article relates to the offending words. The meaning has been taken to be false. The question of liability is done.
Chee: Turn then to pg 75 of your AEIC, bottom of the page. Is the Government transparent? Do you agree with this statement?
Singh: I object.
Judge: Irrelevent.
Chee: Do you believe the funds belongs to the people?
Singh: Irrelevent.
Chee: Same line and reason, that he is the Prime Minister and takes pride in the integrity -
Singh: The question is on the matter of Assesment of Damages -
Judge: Move on, Dr Chee.
Chee: You are the Deputy or the Vice Chairman of the GIC?
Singh: Irrelevant.
Chee: I want to establish that he says his reputation is sterling -
Singh: My client didn’t say that.
Judge: Yes.
Chee: How and where you have invested the GIC funds?
Judge: Move on.
Chee: Were you aware of the scandal at NKF -
Singh: Relevancy? NKF is a matter of liability.
Judge: Dr Chee, irrelevant.
Chee: Then you agree that T T Durai’s salary was excessive?
Singh: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Chee: Do you agree the salary -
Singh: Your Honour, my client was not aware of the NKF scandal -
Judge: Irrelevant.
Chee: If T T Durai had a summary judgement -
Singh: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Chee: Do you agree that the openness of the Government -
Singh: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Chee: I disagree as the witness was a Prime Minister during the period and argued in Parliament -
Singh: Maybe the Health Ministry was misled and my client did not know. The Government did proceed to investigate the matter.
Chee: The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health made comments and continued leading the people to donate to the NKF. You were the Prime Minister -
Singh: Objection.
Chee: Did you know the warning signals -
Singh: Objection.
Chee: These were raised in Parliament and whether he was sleeping like some of his colleagues -
Singh: That is not necessary and insulting -
Judge: Dr Chee, move on.
Singh: I want to remind Dr Chee of the injunction against repeating -
Chee: Do you agree if the salary is too much?
Judge: Disallowed.
Chee: Do you think that your Ministers spend too much -
Judge: Disallowed.
Chee: I put to you that the PAP is bent on greed and power.
Singh Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Chee Refer to pg 9 of your AEIC. Is the information on the cost of labour of building HDB flats available?
Singh: Objection.
Judge Sustained.
Chee: Is information on the cost of material of building HDB flats available?
Singh: Objection.
Judge Sustained.
Chee: Do you agree that the HDB is operating in secrecy?
Singh: Objection.
Judge Sustained.(lion note :CSJ finished cross exam of LHL at 10.37am.
followed by CSC from 10.37 am to 12.14pm.
quote from
http://sgfrag.net/?p=3616
to be continued after inserting quote from SDP site.)
—————————————————–
(lion note:Ravi started cross exam LKY from 1pm and end at 0125pm.
CSJ started cross exam LKY from 0128pm.The following transcripts
(bewteen ''@@@@'') come from
http://www32.a2hosting.com/~yoursdp/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/494-mm-lee-lost-for-words-during-cross-examination-by-chee
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
CSJ: Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.
LKY: (pause)...Sorry?
CSJ: We get to meet at last.
LKY: I thought we've met many other times across election rallies.
CSJ: Your memory fails you. I've never met you before and you know why? Because you keep avoiding me. (Mr Lee laughs) Well, we have this opportunity right now. Let me ask you this question. You gave an interview saying: "If you defame us, and if I'm involved, I go to the the witness box and you can question me not only on the particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life." Do you stand by your words?
LKY: I do.
CSJ: Good. In the course of the cross-examination, will you then answer questions not just on this particular defamation issue, but on all issues in your life -- and I don't mean your personal life, I mean your political life? Will you stand by that?
LKY: Your Honour, we appeared in court when the issue was whether or not the summary judgment was proper. That was the time to challenge --
CSJ: Mr Lee, that was not my question.
Judge: Allow the witness to answer. Mr Lee, please go on.
LKY: I have to answer. I'm a lawyer. I no longer practice the law. I know your purpose. You dodged that occasion and you're trying -- Dr Chee is trying today when the issue is the question of quantum of damages, it's not liability. I'm here to answer questions relating to the quantum of damages.
CSJ: Thank you. Then why is it that you say you will go to the witness box --
LKY: I have already explained that, Your Honour --
CSJ: -- and answer questions not just particular to this defamation issue but on all issues of your life. Now tell me, are those just brave words meant for public consumption and in this situation right now you're turning tail and running?
LKY: Ha ha ha, no Your Honour --
CSJ: Good. Then you won't mind me asking you why is it that you make this application to cut short your cross-examination precisely when you walk in at noon and say that you have to be stopped in the cross-examination by 2:15 giving me. the defence, only two hours and fifteen minutes, and then insisting that all of us can't go for lunch. And on top of that refusing to tell the court what this "important matter" you have this afternoon is.
LKY: That's...Your Honour...(pause)
CSJ: I'm lost for words too as I think you are right now.
LKY: ...(pause; Mr Lee was seen opening his mouth to answer but no words came out)
CSJ: Go ahead, Mr Lee.
LKY: ...(pause)
CSJ: No answer? That settles the question then.
LKY: Ha ha ha.
Judge: Dr Chee!
CSJ: Fine, let Mr Lee continue. I'm just waiting. He's probably lost for words because he doesn't quite know what to say at this stage.
Judge: If you keep interrupting the witness...Yes, Mr Lee.
LKY: ...(even longer pause)CSJ: Please don't run down the clock. I've only got a few minutes.
At this stage, Mr Davinder Singh jumped in to bail out Mr Lee.
Singh: What is the question? Dr Chee has made so many points in his speech. He has already been told that the time to cross-examine the witness was during the summary judgment. If he had leave to defend. All issues would have been open for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that for Dr Chee to have questioned him. The witness said that Dr Chee had dodged that application and is now trying through the back door to introduce impermissible material. The witness said he is here as he said to answer questions on quantum. Dr Chee should really get on with the issue of quantum.
CSJ: Let me ask the question again. Mr Lee, you have said that you are here to answer these questions and I say that in that case why did you make an application to, halfway through the session, want the court to cut short this entire hearing. Now, I remind you that we have got until the end of tomorow, the end of tomorrow. So we have one-and-a-half days. But you insist that we have to finish by 2:15 for you to attend to some matters that you won't even reveal to the court. Now I ask you now does this sound like somebody who's willing to come to court and meet and resolve the issues?
LKY: Your Honour, I had a message from one of my counsel's aides to say that I should be in court by here 2 o'clock - by 12 o'clock because Your Honour has imposed a guillotine that the cross-examination of the prime minister would end at twelve. So I turn up at twelve. I was told that the guillotine allowed - had already been late he would be given 2 hours. I suggest - I asked my counsel to request the court to finish this two hours so that I can attend to some important matters. There's no disadvantage to anybody to be sitting here and finishing off this cross-examination within the two hours. What I do not want to be a party to is a deliberate abuse of the process, of the proceedings of the court by delaying tactics.
CSJ: So, Mr Lee --
LKY: And by asking irrelevant questions, Dr Chee is running out the gullotine. At the end of the day, we've had this confrontation face to face have you thrown any dirt, have you dug up any scandal? Are you still saying as you've said before that this government is run like the NKF?
CSJ: Now, Mr Lee, let me try to --
LKY: No, we are here because you have said that --
CSJ: Mr Lee, I'm going to ask you this question and I wish you'd just stick to the questions that I pose to you. I'm asking you why did you come to court --
LKY: Because I was asked --
CSJ: Let me rephrase my question. Are you telling the court that you had nothing to do with the curtailment of this entire process?
Singh: Your Honour, I made the application this morning and Your Honour would remembers that I said I was very troubled with what the Chees did yesterday and that it was quite apparent that they had nothing to ask which was of any relevance and that unfortunately or otherwise has been proven in this exchange. And I said, Your Honour, that the whole purpose of the cross-examination was to insult, annoy and to scandalise and that's also been proven true. For that reason, I had asked that there be a guillotine. Your Honour had full powers to control the proceedings. The order has already been made and I don't see why this witness should be asked to explain something that was the subject of my application and Your Honour's order.
CSJ: Do you see the game that's being played here, Mr Lee? Do you see how you are beginning to hide behind your counsel and then claim, "Look, I'm willing to confront them. It's my counsel." Now I'm going to ask you a very simple question: Right here, right now, tell Mr Davnder Singh "Don't interrupt. I will answer these questions as they are put to me right now."
LKY: Heh-heh. Your Honour, I've briefed counsel, I've always found it's never wise to be my own lawyer in my own case. I know that some perople believe that they can do otherwise, and I'm quite sure that Dr Chee is making a very great impression on all the reporters in this court of how he is better than Mr Ravi --
CSJ: I think you meant Mr Singh.
LKY: I believe Mr Singh is better qualified to deal with the legalities of this case.
CSJ: Well, I should hope so with all the training that he's got. Now, coming back to my question, Mr Lee, is your answer no, that you wll not tell Mr Singh: "Stay out of this. Let me answer my question because --
LKY: I --
CSJ: Let me finish my question -- because you have said -- and I repeat to you -- that you will answer not only questions about the "particular defamation issue, but on all issues in my life."
LKY: Yes...as long as that was what was an issue and that was the, it was an issue in the summary judgement was appealed against. [Note how garbled the answer is.] And we turned up for the hearing but you dodged the hearing.
CSJ: Mr Lee, you are not unintelligent.
LKY: Thank you.
CSJ: You knew precisely what you meant and what you mean is: "Come and ask me all these questions that doesn't pertain to this defamation suit and I will answer you because my entire standing, inlcuding the standing of this government, is at stake." Is that not correct?
LKY: I think, Dr Chee, we'll cut short this proceeding to become more relevant.END OF QUOTE FROM SDP WEB SITE.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
CONTINUED QUOTED FROM
http://sgfrag.net/?p=3616
Dr Chee: He (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) is talking about his integrity. Is this the same integrity that you are referring to when your government in 1963 arrested all your political opponents under Operation Coldstore?
Mr Davinder Singh, counsel for the plaintiffs, rises to object.
Dr Chee (turning to Mr Singh): Let him answer, he wants to answer.
Judge Belinda Ang: Question is disallowed.
Mr Singh: Thank you, Your Honour.
Dr Chee: He wants to talk about integrity and I want to talk about integrity. Let’s talk about integrity, Mr Lee. Is this the same integrity as you are referring to when you jailed Mr Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, when you imprisoned Dr Lim Hock Siew for 19 years, and when depriving them all –
Judge Ang: Question is disallowed.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew: May I point out to you what Singapore was when I became prime minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now. We had less than $100 million in the kitty. Now that the assets that we have and I am not disclosing this but Global Financial Services assessed Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund at over $300 billion.
Dr Chee: I am impressed. Now –
Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If you are impressed, Mr Chee – Dr Chee, if you’re impressed, you would not have made these allegations.
Dr Chee: Mr Lee, is this the same integrity where you’re talking about declassified documents from London?
Judge Ang: Irrelevant.
Dr Chee: – that you have –
Judge Ang: The witness is not required to answer.
Dr Chee: And I would like – well, Your Honour, he’s brought up integrity and I just want to be able to pursue that line just a little bit more. Is it the same integrity –
Mr Singh: Your Honour, I object to this line of questioning.
Dr Chee: That you are referring to, Mr Lee, where now we begin to know –
Justice Ang: Question is disallowed.
Dr Chee: – and as a young man, I didn’t – I believed you but now I’m reading declassified documents from London saying that somehow –
Mr Singh: Your Honour –
Dr Chee: – somehow, Mr Lim Chin Siong –
Mr Singh: Your Honour, please stop him.
Dr Chee: – was in his –
Judge Ang: Dr Chee
Dr Chee: Was in his political situation, and that somehow –
Judge Ang: Your question is disallowed.
Dr Chee: – you had – I beg your pardon, Your Honour?
Justice Ang: The question is disallowed. How is this relevant to the assessment of damages?
Dr Chee: You haven’t even heard my question yet. You haven’t even heard my question. Let me ask the question and then you can disallow it, Your Honour.
Mr Lee remained quiet.
Posted by Martyn See at 10:48 PM''
end of quote from
http://sgfrag.net/?p=3616
Edited by lionnoisy 03 Jun `08, 12:07PM
-
-
-
This learned lawyers blog supplement CSJ transcripts.
Pl take note I am not agree with his assessemnt to Lees.
I just want you to see what did our learned PhD Chee
aske LKY during this once in many years opportunity.
Do u have a better questions to ask if u were CSJ?
The following refer to Lee Kuan Yew's testimony or rather the lack of it.
Chee asked him whether he came to power through unfair means in 1959, as shown by declassified British Colonial Office documents in London? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.
Chee asks about his throwing Lim Chin Siong, his political compatriot, in jail under the ISA in solitary confinement for several years in the 1960s and whether this was a sign of a man with a reputation and integrity? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.
Chee asks about the Operation Cold Store in the 1960s where he jails political opponents because he fears he might be overthrown? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.
Chee asks about Chia Thye Poh, Zaid Zakaharia and Lim Hock Siew, his political opponents whom he imprisons without cause for many many years? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.
Chee asks whether the only people who have a good opinion of him are his state owned and controlled Singapore press, whereas everyone else in Singapore as well as the entire list of respectable foreign organizations and countries including the entire European Union consider him as a thug and small time street bully? Question disallowed and the father shamefully just sits there, protected by his counsel Mr. Singh and the kangaroo judge.
Other than the dubious Transparency International Kula Lumpur Chapter (not to be confused with Transparency International of Berlin Germany) he was asked whether anyone else considered him in high regard other than the local press which he controls? His answer was that PERC and a Swiss organization, both of whom cater for businessmen thought highly of him. But when asked whether highly respected Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Without Borders, Reporters without Borders, ILRW and several other international bodies considered him a crook; he had nothing to say, because as usual the Jack Rabbit Davinder Singh stood up once again to object and the judge obediently sustained the objection.
Then Lee Kuan Yew went on to insult Dr. Chee with impunity, that he is a liar, a cheat a charlatan, a criminal and what not. Of course the judge permitted these insults, since after all Lee Kuan Yew and his son owned the courts and the judge as well.http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court
Edited by lionnoisy 04 Jun `08, 3:36PM
-
-
-
what is the differences between SDP site materials and
CSJ's questions?
Did he has better questions to ask,for other Opposition
Parties and other Opposition people.
Of course,he had to make sure the questions relevant to the assessment
of damages.Or he should make the questions look like relevant in order
avoid to be struck out!!
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/506-lky-otherwise-you-wouldnt-be-able-to-be-living-in-an-hdb-flat
Who look stupid?
the followings come from SDP ,or u CSJ,site:
LKY: otherwise you wouldn't be able to be living in an HDB flat
Thursday, 05 June 2008''Singapore Democrats
Below is the transcript of another exchange between Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Lee Kuan Yew during cross-examination on 27 May 08.
The following exchange took place after Mr Lee Kuan Yew introduced the award given to him by Transparency International (Malaysia):''CSJ: Are you or are you not depending on this document to show your integrity in this court room. I remind one more time you will need a lot more that this because I can tell you this award is not worth the paper it is written.
LKY: We are also judged by PERC, we also judged by IMD, World Economic Forum and a whole host of other rating agencies.
CSJ: Good. Are you including International Commission Jurists? Are you including Human Rights Watch? Are you including Amnesty International? Are you including Committee to Project Journalists? Are you including International Federation for Free Exchange? Are you including Southeast Asia Press Alliance? Are you including World Movement for Democracy? Are you including Human Rights Defenders? Are you
including World Forum for Democratisation in Asia? Are you including National Endowment for Democracy? Are you including Liberal International? Tell me you cited four, I cited you at least ten, Mr Lee. So do me a favour, let us not pick and choose at what endorsements you get because overall if you're trying to show me that your standing in the world is that high you wouldn't be clutching at straws and producing something from Tunku Aziz. I had a conversation with him -
Singh: Your Honour, what is the question?
CSJ: The question is why is Mr Lee depending on such a slipshop - when it is not a verifiable - if you come and tell me that you have been awarded the Nobel Prize I would accept it because that has been vetted. Tell me, who is in this organisation called Transparency International Malaysia. Tell me who are the officer here and when they make awards such as these, what vetting process do they go through?
Singh: Can we ask the cross examiner if he has a question? If he has not and he wants to make a speech and maybe for the next one hour left he can make his political speech. If he has no more questions for the witness he should say so.
CSJ: Your Honour, my question is this: Mr Lee has brought this ridiculous piece of paper and tells me that he is depending on this to prove his reputation. I'm asking him, does this plaintiff know who is behind this Transparency International Malaysia?
LKY: Your Honor, the man is on the Internet and the organisation is also on the website. They asked me in a private letter if I would receive this letter, There were wanting to score a point that it is possible to have in Southeast Asia a clean government. I agreed and I assume he would not sign a document citing TI which
rates us always among the top 5 unless it had been authorised to do so. And now
you are saying that he is liar, that he has falsely attributed this paragraph to Dr
Eigen. Well then I say if you brought Dr Eigen here with an affidavit, then you can demolish Mr Adnan (should be Aziz) but not demolish me because I do not depend on Transparency International. I'm just putting this as an example of what PERC, IMD -
CSJ: But we haven't got the records of PERC, IMD and so in line with what Mr Singh said, let's dispense with it. Because if you did, you would produce them.
LKY: Ha. The simple answer really is between the competing NGOs, one for HR, one for liberal ideas of how governments should be and rating agencies concerned with actual assessment of government performance - where do investors put their money in. hey have not put their money in, if you study the World Bank and IMF reports in countries which are unable and corrupt -
CSJ: I think you're deliberately running down the clock. Let me ask you this question -
LKY: You are asking me this question -
CSJ: Let me pose this question. You had mentioned the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy -
Judge: Dr Chee! The witness, continue, finish -
CSJ: Let me ask you this question -
Judge: Dr Chee! I would like to hear this witness. Please continue.
LKY: There are liberal organisations which disagree with the way Singapore runs its social system but we believe we know better. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, otherwise we wouldn't have this courtroom, otherwise you wouldn't be able to be living in an HDB flat.* That's the final test.
CSJ: I think you're making this leap of logic that even Bruce Hawking would find did hard to follow. You are saying that without you without this entire government, we wouldn't be here? A little presumptuous, don't you think?
LKY: Your Honour, I'm saying -
CSJ: You see, Mr Lee, in Hong Kong people thrive without you and your system, in Taiwan people thrive without you and your system, in Korea people thrive without you and your system, and you are coming to this court and telling me that what we have right now is all because of you and your system that you have created. I think you are making too much of a presumption.
Judge: "Dr Chee, I'm going to stop this line of cross-examination."
*Note: Earlier, this sentence read: "...otherwise you would be living in an HDB flat." We apologize for the mistake.
More of the audio exchanges will be posted on youtube in due course.####---end of quoteEdited by lionnoisy 06 Jun `08, 8:03AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
lionnoisy comes with a clone,which rights is not been reconized by sgforums rules
lionnoisy inventor and co--inventor of makepeace
While many here feel lionnoisy posts far from satisfactory,
pl read more to see how badly lionnoisy want support etc to give
him a little help to post in sgforums.
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
lionnoisy invented''
makepeace
A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.
Deception
Use of a SockPuppet is typically frowned on. The social convention against sock puppets arises from the RealWorld. We do not expect to discover that the guy who runs the coffee shop is also our neighbour, but with a fake mustache and beard. In most communities there is at least a social expectation, and sometimes a site policy, that each person will use only a single identity. Thus, use of sock puppets is a DeceptivePractice.
A PenName (or anonymous posting) is about discretionary exposure of personally identifying information, and doesn't exclude the possibility of participating with a measure of integrity since discretion and deception are not at all the same thing. It is fair to expect that we all exercise a certain measure of discretion, but it is hoped that we do not engage in intentional deception. A SockPuppet, on the other hand, is dishonestly represented as being a unique individual, distinct from the existing identities already in use in the community.
Uses
By using several Sock Puppets all posting in favour of an idea, a dishonest person can give the impression that the idea has more grass-roots support than it really has. See also StuffingTheBallotBox, which is a similar problem in a more formal, voting context. Sock puppets make it harder to enforce "one man, one vote."
Sock puppet identities are disruptive in conversation because they are often used so that a person can ask questions of himself and appear to be carrying on a thread between two individuals.
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?
Inventors: lionnoisy:
makepeace, a clone of lionnoisy to support himself
MAKEPEACE, MAKE CLONES?
A REPORT ON ATTEMPTED ASTROTURFING AND SOCKPUPPETING BY LIONNOISY
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!
-
-
-
Fail thread expressing own strange opinions is fail.
I give you better thread from gaming forum:
http://forums.playpark.net/showthread.php?t=407443
PS: Gamers and netizens familiar with 4chan will get the humour behind that thread. Everyone else can google for '4 chan motivational posters' and 'Phoenix Wright'.
PPS: If you don't get the thread/can't see the pic, there's always http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com
Edited by kiekergaard 06 Jun `08, 2:38PM
-
