Singapore Rebel

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Oops, we were too restrictive : PM Lee

PM Lee filming the audience in the auditorium with a mobile phone. The candid camera moment held a serious point - anyone can now be an amateur film-maker. -- ST

'The overall thrust of all these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future. And we will progressively open up our system even more.'
- PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally speech 2008

In his annual National Day rally speech last night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a triad of policy changes aimed at loosening up political space in Singapore. Firstly, public demonstrations and protests will be allowed at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park. Secondly, political podcasts and videocasts will be allowed during General Elections. Thirdly, the law banning political films will be partially lifted. For political films, he outlined it like this - "partisan stuff" and "slanted" videos remain outlawed, while "factual footage, documentaries and recordings of live events" will be allowed. In other words, videos such as this may still be illegal while this may get the green light. Others such as this, this and this will fall in the grey zones.

In anticipation of the PM's announcements, the Straits Times rang me up yesterday to seek my views. I told them that I fully welcome the changes, that it was the biggest stride taken by the Government to loosen up political expression in the last 20 years (including the opening up of Speakers' Corner in 1999 and the waiving of police permits for indoor functions in 2004), that it was step in the right direction in meeting my dual objectives - lessening the climate of fear and a total review of the Films Act, and that the changes were brought about by the recent actions of activists and filmmakers who had pushed the envelope.

The ST journalist also told me that some of those interviewed before me remained skeptical about such promises. I assume that many will adopt a wait-and-see attitude, and that others will speculate about the hidden traps. I shall not waste time mulling over either. Since the debate over the Films Act began with my film Singapore Rebel, I will seek to end it by re-submitting Rebel and Zahari's 17 Years, both officially banned, to the censors for re-appraisal. If it is not sheer stupidity to continue enforcing bans on these films when they are viewable at a click of a mouse, I don't know what is.

______________________________________________

Yes to factual footage
By Sue-Ann Chia & Jeremy Au Yong

MIDWAY through his National Day Rally address, the Prime Minister fished out a mobile phone and proceeded to film the audience before him in the auditorium.

Behind him, on a giant screen, the audience saw themselves featured on the web page of the Prime Minister's Office - live.

'There you are, simple as that. I've just made our first non-political video,' he said to laughter from the audience.

Mr Lee's candid camera moment held a serious point. Anyone can now be an amateur film-maker, capturing politics on film, and people will do so.

'So, we've got to allow political videos but with some safeguards,' he said. 'An outright ban is no longer sensible.'

Thanks to new media technologies, people can easily make videos and upload them on the Internet.

'This is how people communicate on the Web in daily life. They make videos, they pass clips around,' Mr Lee said in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday.

What will now make the cut with the censors: factual footage, documentaries and recordings of live events.

But some things still won't pass. 'If you make a political commercial so that it's purely made-up material, partisan stuff, footage distorted to create a slanted impression, I think those should still be off-limits,' he said.

'In between what is ok and what is not ok, there will be grey areas. But I think we can deal with this.'

Political films will be dealt with in ways similar to non-political films, with censorship and film classification standards, he said, with a panel to decide whether or not a political film would pass.

'The overriding consideration is to preserve the integrity, quality, and honesty of our political discourse,' he said.

Political films were banned 10 years ago, two years after Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan applied for a licence to sell a video-tape on the SDP.

Section 33 of the Films Act disallows the making, reproduction, distribution and screening of 'party political films'. Such films are defined as those favouring a political party or pushing a political end.

Mr Lee said political films were banned for a reason.

'Politics is a serious affair. We want voters to consider issues rationally, coolly...and think through decisions which affect your future and make a considered judgement,' he said.

'And our worry is that films are an emotive medium. The impact of seeing something on a film is quite different from reading something in cold print.

'It hits you viscerally. It engages your emotions before your thinking processes can kick in, and if you are watching it in a crowd, (it is) even more powerful.

'Then, passions can get stirred up and people can get carried away.'

The promise of some political films being allowed was cheered by film-maker Martyn See, who had two of his films banned in recent years.

'This is by far the most obvious relaxation of political space in Singapore in the past 20 years. It will lessen the climate of fear,' he said.

But Senior Research Fellow Tan Tarn How from the Institute of Policy Studies preferred there to be no conditions imposed.

'It doesn't make sense to assume that most people are most of the time not smart enough to tell the good from the bad, and truth from falsehood,' he said.

Still, film-maker Tan Pin Pin is happy with the progress.

'A gesture has been made, and I guess it's a positive thing. This is the start of a long journey, towards less frenetic governance,' she said.

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

BETTER ENGAGEMENT

'PAP welcomes the liberalisation announced by the Prime Minister. This will increase the opportunities for Singaporeans to give their views and allow political parties to better engage cyber-citizens. PAP will operate responsibly within the new and expanded boundaries to inform, educate and reach out to younger voters through various platforms. Overall, our goal is to create a conducive environment, whether online or within the general public, for political issues to be discussed seriously and productively, to help find solutions for challenges that Singapore faces.'

- Education Minister Ng Eng Hen, PAP organising secretary (special duties and new media)

NO FAVOUR GRANTED, JUST A RIGHT

'The Prime Minister is hoping that Singaporeans will go on their bended knees to thank him for these concessions. He seems to forget that the right to make political films or the right to hold demonstrations are part and parcel of human rights.'

- JB Jeyaretnam, Reform Party

Read also :

Political videos on Net?

Speakers' Corner: protests ok

Singapore to ease bans on political films

Singapore To Allow More Freedom Of Expresion

Singapore PM says ban on outdoor protests should ease

Friday, August 15, 2008

One Nation Under Lee to premiere in Malaysia

One Nation Under Lee, seized by Singapore censors during a private screening this year, will make its official premiere in Malaysia's Freedom Film Festival in Kuala Lumpur. Directed by local artist/activist Seelan Palay, the 45 minute documentary will then proceed to make its rounds in Johor, Sarawak and Penang. Three months after its seizure, the Board of Film Censors has yet to certify the film, which means it is effectively prohibited from public screening in Singapore.

Previous Singaporean works screened in FFF included Martyn See's Singapore Rebel, Zahari's 17 Years and Speakers Cornered, Tan Pin Pin's Singapore Gaga and Moving House, and Asia Witness Production's I Love Malaya.

Film : One Nation Under Lee
Dir : Seelan Palay
Date : Saturday 6 Sept 2008
Time : 4.30 pm
Venue : Central Market Annexe, Kuala Lumpur

Click here for the full program of Freedom Film Festival.

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Democracy, Justice, Equality, Peace, Progress

Choice quotes from Singapore's political leaders.

On DEMOCRACY

"If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought."
- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition leader, April 27, 1955

"If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."
- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955

"Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society."
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997

"If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests." - Lee Kuan Yew, 1962

"You're talking about Rwanda or Bangladesh, or Cambodia, or the Philippines. They've got democracy, according to Freedom House. But have you got a civilised life to lead? People want economic development first and foremost. The leaders may talk something else. You take a poll of any people. What is it they want? The right to write an editorial as you like? They want homes, medicine, jobs, schools."
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997

"What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1986 National Day Rally

"There is nothing to forbid anybody from nailing his colours to the mast, and indeed it is the safest way to do it. Nail your colours to the mast, defend it and say,"This is my flag, this is what I believe in. I believe in open debate, arguments, persuasion, I hope to win by votes." But start manipulating innocent professional groups, cultural groups and make them support political causes, whether its freedom of the foreign press or whatever, then I say you are looking for unpleasant linkages with what has happened in the past."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

"The People's Association is a government organisation to promote government policies."
- Wong Kan Seng, Straits Times, Mar 22 2003

"I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Petir, 1982

"The ideas of individual supremacy and the right of free expression, when carried to excess, have not worked. They have made it difficult to keep America society cohesive. Asia can see it is not working.. In America itself, there is widespread crime and violence, old people feel forgotten, families are falling apart. And the media attacks the integrity and character of your leaders with impunity, drags down all those in authority and blames everyone but itself."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Sept 1995

"For Singapore, its test for its own democracy must be whether it fit and serve the interests of its people and conditions, and not serve some abstract ideal that the Western media thought it ought to conform to. If in 10 years, Philippines, Taiwan and Korea were better societies because they adopted the US model, Singapore would hurry to catch."
- Goh Chok Tong, 1995 National Day Rally

"Political reform need not go hand in hand with economic liberalisation.. I hold unconventional views about this.. I do not believe if you are a libertarian, full of diverse opinions, full of competing ideas in the market place, full of sound and fury, therefore you will succeed."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 2005

"I think in Singapore, we stand a chance of making the one-man-one-vote system work. With amendments as we have done, you know, like GRCs.. We need to make it work. And I believe with pragmatic adjustments, given these favourable conditions, we can have more open debate."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

"One-man-one-vote is a most difficult form of government.. Results can be erratic."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Dec 19 1984

"I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. We practise it because that's what the British bequeathed us."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1994

"There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out to the students or with the public at large...and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That's democracy."
- Lee Kuan Yew telling students to form political parties, Straits Times, Feb 1, 2005

"If you are a troublemaker...it's our job to politically destroy you. Put it this way. As long as JB Jeyaretnam stands for what he stands for - a thoroughly destructive force - we will knock him. Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac."
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man And His Ideas, 1997

"I feel sanguine enough to say that there has never been a better set of conditions for open democratic politics because there is no need for unified front politics."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

"If we had considered them serious political figures, we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have bankrupt them earlier."
- Lee Kuan Yew on political opposition, Straits Times, Sept 14 2003

"Once in a while, Think Centre says they want to go to the Speakers' Corner and they want to plant 100 flowers there, let the 100 flowers bloom...It's a signal - speak your voice, be heard.
- Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally, 2004

"I know some people want even greater freedom. But where politics is concerned, I prefer to ease up slowly rather than open up with a big bang. When Gorbachev opened up the Soviet Union with his glasnost, the Soviet Union collapsed with a big bang. We should, therefore, pump the air into the political balloon slowly. I don't intend to change my name to 'Goh Ba Chov'!"
- Goh Chok Tong, 2001 National Day Rally

"I am encouraged also because I see more and more people write letters to the press and sign their real names. That's a good sign, a good tendency. To run a democratic system, you must have democratic impulses in the people. There must be a cultural basis for that system. It's not just having a constitution and saying," Well, there you are, the system is democratic."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

"Now if democracy will not work for the Russians, a white Christian people, can we assume that it will naturally work with Asians?"
- Lee Kuan Yew, Asahai Shimbun symposium, May 9, 1991

"Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas or simply be different."
- Lee Hsien Loong, Inauguration Speech, Aug 12 2004

"They say people can think for themselves? Do you honestly believe that the chap who can't pass primary six knows the consequence of his choice when he answers a question viscerally, on language, culture and religion? But we knew the consequences. We would starve, we would have race riots. We would disintegrate."
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

"They say, oh, let’s have multiparty politics. Let’s have different parties change and be in charge of the Government. Is it that simple? You vote in a Division Three government, not a Division One government, and the whole economy will just subside within three, four years. Finished."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Today, Aug 15 2008

On JUSTICE

"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?"
- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955

"These powers will not be allowed to be used against political opponents within the system who compete for the right to work the system. That is fundamental and basic or the powers will have destroyed the purpose for which they were forged."
- Lee Kuan Yew speaking in Parliament on the Preservation of Public Security Act, a precursor to the ISA, Oct 14, 1959

"We have over a hundred political detainees, men against whom we are unable to prove anything in a court of law. Nearly 50 of them are men who gave us a great deal of anxiety during the years of Confrontation because they were Malay extremists. Your life and this dinner would not be what it is if my colleagues and I had decided to play it according to the rules of the game."
- Lee Kuan Yew speaking to the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, Mar 18, 1967

"We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don't do that, the country would be in ruins."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1986

"The same law applies to me. Nobody has sued me for libel because I do not defame my enemies."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Success Stories, 2002

"Most libels, and I have taken about 30 actions, take place at election time. It has not stuck because I am prepared to go before a court, stand in the witness box and face the most aggressive of lawyers who can cross-examine me on my personal history."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, Sept 30 2002

On EQUALITY

"The way to build a cohesive society is to ensure that every Singaporean is treated equally, and that the rich and powerful are not favoured over ordinary Singaporeans, Mr Goh Chok Tong emphasised last night."
- Straits Times, Aug 12 1991

It is essential to rear a generation at the very top of society that has all the qualities needed to lead and give the people the inspiration and the drive to make it succeed. In short, the elite.. Every society tries to produce this type. The British have special schools for them: the gifted and talented are sent to Eton and Harrow."
- Lee Kuan Yew, August 1966

"If I tell Singaporeans - we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture. Then they will say,"Look, I'm doing poorly. You are responsible." But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I'm not God, I can't change you. But I can encourage you, give you extra help to make you do, say maybe, 20% better."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Success Stories, 2002

"The human being is an unequal creature. That is a fact. And we start off with the proposition. All the great religions, all the great movements, all the great political ideology, say let us make the human being as equal as possible. In fact, he is not equal, never will be."
- Lee Kuan Yew, from a speech during the 1960s, Success Stories

"We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic."
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1967

"There are some flaws in the assumptions made for democracy. It is assumed that all men and women are equal or should be equal. Hence, one-man-one-vote. But is equality realistic? If it is not, to insist on equality must lead to regression."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Create 21 Asahi Forum Tokyo, Nov 20 1992

On PEACE

"Repression can only go up to a point. When it becomes too acute, the instruments of repression, namely the army and the police, have been proved time and time again in history to have turned their guns on their masters."
- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, May 5, 1959

"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it." - Lee Kuan Yew evoking the ghost of Deng Xiaoping whilst endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17, 2004

"Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it"
- Lee Kuan Yew on what would happen if a profligate opposition government touched Singapore's vast monetary reserves, Straits Times, Sept 16 2006

On PROGRESS

"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervene on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what people think."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, Apr 20 1987

"Every Singaporean who owns a flat can double his value in today's terms within the next 15 to 20 years. In other words, in the next 20 years, we can make everybody worth twice as much, at least."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, National Day Rally, 1990

"We've got to compete ourselves from now on with developed countries, not with developing countries, because we are going to compete in the developed country league."
- Goh Chok Tong, 1992 National Day Rally

"Earning money is not the sole objective of life or education. A community of any quality should have a whole range of skills and interests. They should paint, write, perform, visit art galleries and enjoy world-class concerts. Only then will they form a vibrant, rounded, interesting community."
- Goh Chok Tong, 1999 National Day Rally

"In the next decade, we need to think and act like revolutionaries. We have to innovate, not merely imitate. We will succeed not be following the footsteps of the incumbent, but by introducing new dimensions into play. We need Singaporeans who can lead the way in creating new wealth for our economy."
- Goh Chok Tong, 2000 National Day Rally

"New Singapore will be one of the world's finest, most liveable cities. Arts, theatres, museums, music and sports will flourish. Singapore will be a lively and exciting place.. Our city will not only have depth, but also the richness of diversity. But above all, Singapore will a home for Singaporeans."
- Goh Chok Tong, 2001 National Day Rally

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Speakers Cornered screens in public

Audience at the Substation Arts Centre during the Q&A session

Read this blog review by Stefan S, arguably Singapore's most rabid movie buff.

Speakers Cornered, passed clean by the Board of Film Censors in April, finally received its first public screening yesterday at the Substation Arts Centre. The screening was part of the Singapore Short Cuts, an annual local short film festival presented by the Substation and supported by the Singapore National Museum and the Singapore Film Commission.

The 28 minute documentary capped a matinee of films that included Twogether by Victric Thng, Bedok Jetty by Boo Junfeng and Caramel / 黑默糖 by Kelvin Ke. Blank Rounds, a film about National Service, was withdrawn by its director Green Zeng due to a change in screening venue. An insider scoop has it that the yesterday's screening was originally slated to be held at the much larger National Museum Gallery Theatre, but was moved to the Substation theatre for "logistical" reasons. All tickets for the entire festival have been snapped up.

Speakers Cornered is my third film. The first two, Singapore Rebel and Zahari's 17 Years, are banned by the Singapore Government. I have recently submitted Nation Builders to the censors.

Meanwhile..

* Raintree Pictures has gone public with their intention to make a political feature film about Singapore's independence, tentatively entitled 1965.

* Jack Neo releases Money No Enough ll this week in local cinemas. It features scenes of anti-ERP street protests. Editing credits to yours truly.

* There is still no word about the status of One Nation Under Lee, a film by local artist Seelan Palay which Government officials seized during its private premiere.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Transcript part Vll - M. Ravi vs LKY

Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (left) with his wife Kwa Geok Choo at the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum.

Human rights lawyer and activist M. Ravi (right) with Chee Siok Chin, Chee Soon Juan, his wife and children crossing the road towards the Supreme Court outside Parliament House.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Two months after the historic courtroom clash, reverberations are still being felt. It began with this editorial from The Wall Street Journal, then this rebuttal from Lee Kuan Yew's office, prompting another round of responses, first from Chee Soon Juan, and then the MMO again, and a final rejoinder from Chee, who also pointed out that the Lee, while under oath, had cited a non-existant letter from the International Bar Association. Then, almost on cue, the IBA releases a scathing 72-page report, accompanied by a press release, slamming the Singapore Government for its record on human rights and its lack of judicial independence. Within 24 hours, the Ministry of Law responded. But the international press seized on IBA's statement, with articles that highlighted the Minister Mentor's error in court.

Links:

Singapore Has an Independent Judiciary
Judging Singapore's Judiciary
Raising the bar
Uniqueness of perfection that sits to our north
Singapore’s Minister Mentor Slips Up Under Oath
International Bar Association gives Singapore dismal grade in free expression, human rights, independence of courts
Request to reconvene is frivolous: Davinder
Davinder Singh: Lee's IBA-letter reference only an “inaccuracy”

__________________________________________________________________

From left : John Tan of the Singapore Democratic Party, activists Mohd Shafi'ee and Isrizal oustside the Supreme Court on the 27th of May 2008.

An update: According to SDP's website, all three men are now placed under police investigation for wearing those T-shirts.

___________________________________________________________________________________

By request, this is the complete transcript of SDP's counsel M. Ravi's cross-examination of Lee Kuan Yew which began around 12.40 pm on the 27th of May 2008 in the Supreme Court. Judge Belinda Ang had earlier allowed an application by Lee's counsel Davinder Singh to impose a guillotine time of 2 hours for the cross-examination of both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew.

This transcript is significant for it contains the some key remarks by LKY, especially the ones pertaining to pursuing defamatory remarks on cyberspace as well as the "near-psychopath" utterance.

Also of note :

* At about noon, Lee Kuan Yew made a surprised early appearance just as the cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong was wrapping up. This prompted his counsel Davindar Singh to make a sudden application to postpone lunch so that LKY's cross-examination can proceed immediately. Despite objections raised by the Chees and M. Ravi, Judge Belinda Ang acceded to Singh's application to skip lunch, but ordered a 10 minute break.
* Ravi's cross-examination of LKY was conducted before the Chees.
* Lee Hsien Loong observed the entire the cross-examination of his father from a seat near the back of the court, just in front of the public gallery.
* Lee Kuan Yew drank from a flask which was placed on his table by his personal assistant, who possibly doubles up as a bodyguard. Earlier, his son drank from a ordinary plastic bottle of mineral water, possibly provided by the courts.
* During CSJ's cross-examination of LKY, a middle-aged woman in the public gallery suddenly yawned aloud, attracting stares from others. Visibly embarrassed, she quietly
apologised. She is one of about a dozen elderlies, possibly members of PAP's grassroots organisation, who had been transported by coach to the court in the morning to stake their places in the queue.

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

Judge : Yes, Mr Singh, call your witness.

Singh : My next witness, your honour, is Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

LKY : I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give in this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Singh : Please sit down, Mr Lee.

LKY : Yup.

Singh : You are Lee Kuan Yew, NRIC number 0000003E, of 38, Oxley Road, Singapore?

LKY : Yes.

Singh : Mr Lee, in front of you, is volumes 1 and 2 of your affidavit. Could you turn to page 67 please? It's marked out.

LKY : Yes.

Singh : Is that your signature?

LKY : Yes.

Singh : Mr Lee, do you confirm that the contents of this affidavit are true and accurate?

LKY : Yah.

Singh : And that they represent your evidence in this court.

LKY : They do.

Ravi : May (inaudible) this courtroom?

Judge : Yes

Ravi : Good afternoon, Mr Lee.

LKY : Good afternoon.

Ravi : I won't hold you long, Mr Lee, and I hope your counsel won't object to that. Mr Lee, when did you come to know about the SDP's defamatory article?

LKY : I cannot remember. All I knew was I had an email or some fax message to say that this article has appeared. Lawyers have been consulted and the lawyers have advised that this is defamatory. So I said go ahead. I don't read the New Democrat or all the other papers. I got too much on my plate. These things are brought to my attention.

Ravi : Mr Lee, when it was brought to your attention, did you then read the article?

LKY : Did I what?

Ravi : When the defamatory context was brought to your attention by your lawyers, did you choose to read the SDP's article?

LKY : No, with the message came the SDP article.

Ravi : And going by your memory, would you agree that it was during the elections that or after the elections was announced that you commenced proceedings?

LKY : Once I saw that article, I knew that the PAP was considering early elections at that time. I was quite convinced that this would be made an election issue. In fact, I read - I can't remember is Dr Chee or his sister - said this was going to be an election issue and they were going to bring this up so we have to have the matter thrashed out in court because otherwise it goes into the hustings - I said this, they said this - and endless arguments. But you say what you like during the election campaign. In the end, you have to come to court and prove that they are true. If they are, then the government is demolished. If you don't, then you've lost (end of audio clip) again you diminished yourself and embarrassed yourself.

Ravi : Mr Lee, do you agree with the description which your counsel has given that this case is perhaps the gravest defamation that has ever been considered by Singapore court?

LKY : Your honour, I don't keep track of all the cases that happened in these courts and since Mr Ravi is a qualified counsel, he knows the client leaves the description of the offence to what he thinks is proper legal language. Is not - I'm not interested in whether it's the right formulation or not. I've always believed never to be my own lawyer.

Ravi : Mr Lee, I do understand the detachment to this matter and equally you are also a trained lawyer and of course taking up one's case and arguing is not something that it's not even recommended by the Law Society rules. But Mr Lee, I'm sure that if your counsel says that this is the gravest defamation that has ever been considered, you must consider that to be a gravest defamation for your counsel to make a condition that -

LKY : Your honour, I have been a lawyer acting in defamation cases and I pitched my client's case in the most graphic, the most vivid and the most telling terms. That's what a good lawyer supposed to do. I once in one case against Mr Jeyaretnam. I had an eminent Q.C. representing me and another eminent Q.C. representing Mr Jeyaretnam and he waxed eloquent and quoted Shakespeare. I didn't object to it. That is the way in which a good counsel would present his client's case.

Ravi : Mr Lee, I would like to give you a quote, "Never chase a lie, let it alone and it will run itself to death." Do you agree with that? That quote is from Lyman Beecher. Have you heard of that, Mr Lee?

LKY : I've heard many similar such phrases and I get endless advice from Western correspondents that if I just ignore the opposition, it will just become completely meaningless. I take a contrary view. I know the mentality and the attitudes of the people in Singapore, and they know me by now that if anybody impugns the integrity of the government of which I was a Prime Minister, I am (inaudible) sued and I must demand that either the court finds that those defamatory words true in which case I'm demolished or there's a penalty.

Ravi : So it is part of your political credo that very lie has to be nailed?

LKY : Every lie that relates to the integrity, honour and the rectitude of the government. This government has lasted through 11 general elections from 1959 to 2006. Nobody has said that the elections was rigged, not even the SDP.

Ravi : Mr Lee -

LKY : I put myself before the public. My government - 7 of those general elections, I personally led the government and I know that that was only possible because we run a clean, efficient, effective, competent government that works to the benefit of people.

Ravi : So any statements that is defamatory of the government - that particular lie has to be nailed?

LKY : Yes, of course. No, not any particular - I said integrity, rectitude, propriety.

Ravi : Do you surf the internet, Mr Lee?

LKY : I do.

Ravi : Have you seen any allegations of impropriety, integrity, circulating around the internet?

LKY : That's cyberspace and the laws on cyberspace has not been able to capture in a appropriate way how a person should protect himself. New rules are being formed in cyberspace but everybody who reads what's on the internet knows you got to check who said it or risk his credibility. You know, you've read Malaysiakini or Malaysia Now. They say many things not said in the Malaysian press. But, is everything said there true? Some are true, some are not true.

Ravi : So, if defamatory remarks that goes to the governance integrity of Singapore had been circulating on the internet, you are prepared to tolerate that?

LKY : I have no choice but if anybody puts his name in print or verbally identifies himself out of court with those remarks, he's challenging my integrity, he's prepared to stand on his credibility and we will need to have it resolved.

Ravi : There are quite a number of postings where people in their own names quite clearly actually challenge that, giving their particulars at that, and you have not taken any action.

Singh : Your honour, we are going over old ground. When Mr Ravi was cross-examining Mr Lee Hsien Loong, we referred to his authority and his bundle of documents Gladlee (spelling) on libel which made it plain that whether or not the plaintiff had sued others who had published defamatory remarks is irrelevant.

Ravi : Your honour, I'm not going into that. I'm going into the effect of the defamation. Please allow me to raise a few questions. I won't take long. I do understand the guillotine and with due respect, Mr Lee, so you would consider that Singapore can still be governed and despite the challenge to your integrity on the internet?

Singh : I have said that in cyberspace, the law cannot capture the culprit.

Ravi : Okay, so I take it that if the law captures, you would pursue?

LKY : Yes, I would.

Ravi : Okay, I'll leave it at that, Mr Lee. I won't go further than that.

(pause)

Ravi : Mr Lee, do you hold Dr Chee in any esteem?

LKY : Sorry, do I hold?

(pause)

Ravi : Okay, I'll rephrase that question.

(pause)

Ravi : Do you consider Dr Chee as a man to be believed?

LKY : I've been asked to testify as to his character. Well, let me tell you what I've said publicly and I'm prepared to say it again. Publicly - without the privilege of saying it in court that he's a liar, a cheat and altogether an unscrupulous man. And I could also add that I had several of our - my own doctors who are familiar with such conduct, people, tell me that he is near-psychopath.

Ravi : Mr Lee, do you take his comments seriously?

LKY : I have to because he takes it very seriously enough to tell the public to believe him. If I did not take him seriously, and he keeps on repeating this and others repeat this, at the end of the day, I and the party that I used to lead will be totally destroyed. Am I being asked to say that your client's credibility is so low that I should ignore whatever he says? Is that what you are putting to me?

Chee Siok Chin : Your honour, I like to make an application for our Assistant Secretary-General John Tan. He was sitting here this morning and I don't know all of a sudden the people won't let him in to witness the rest of the proceedings. He was sitting right here this morning. Could you allow John Tan - tell them to let John Tan in?

Singh : Your honour, I know nothing of this, if Mr John Tan wants to come into open court like any other member of the public and behave himself -

Judge : He can sit in the public gallery.

Singh : Yes, he can.

Judge : We have space for him there.

CSC : No, he was sitting right behind here this morning and there was no objection, nothing, and now he's supposed to sit in the public gallery knowing full well that there is no more space in the public gallery so could you just instruct -

Judge : There is no announcement of Mr John Tan -

CSC : I'm sorry?

Judge : There is no notice to the court of Mr John Tan -

CSC : Well, there was no notice to the court about who these people right behind, yesterday, when you allowed them in? So could you please allow the Assistant Secretary-General -

Judge : They are secretaries of Law Club (garbled, check spelling), Miss Chee, if you must know.
CSC : Now, it's an afterthought. Now after 24 hours, you tell me.

Judge : Please continue, Mr Ravi.

CSC : Can you allow our Assistant Secretary-General John Tan to come in?

Judge : Mr Ravi, carry on.

Chee Soon Juan : Even though we are asking you right now, telling who he is because we need him to help us take notes, will you allow that?

(pause)

CSJ : We are telling you who he is, his name is John Tan. He is the Assistant Secretary-General of SDP -

Judge : Mr Joseph here taking notes for you?

CSJ : We are having a few people trying to assist us in our note-taking. So please, you've already allowed people in unannounced yesterday -

Judge : Provided he is here just for note-taking and nothing else, alright?

CSJ : I'm sorry?

Judge : Provided he is here just for note-taking. Alright, carry on Mr Ravi, please.

Ravi : Mr Lee -

Singh : I think we (inaudible) where we (inaudible) off, your honour, where Mr Lee is asking Mr Ravi whether it is Mr Ravi's suggestion that Dr Chee Soon Juan has absolutely no credibility?

Judge : Yes, Mr Ravi?

Ravi : Your honour, I am here to put my question and the plaintiff's counsel is putting questions to his counsel, through my mouth. I find that very strange but nevertheless, with due respect, I will conduct my case the way I deem it fit.

(pause)

Ravi : Mr Lee, in your opinion, do you think the majority of people believe what Dr Chee says?

LKY : We have not done a public poll and it's not possible for us to say with certainty what percentage of the population believes him but if you go by the election results, he scored 20% of the votes in Sembawang, so obviously 20% of the people in Sembawang decided what Mr Chee and his supporters were saying in the campaign - repeatedly - that the Singapore Government is run like the NKF, that was put to the test so there's 20% in Sembawang. And that's with vigorous campaigning on the PAP side. So you cannot dismiss the effect of such repeated attempts to discredit the reputation of the leaders of the PAP.

Ravi : So therefore your conclusion would be the fact that the SDP scored 20 odd per cent in the last election that the public do not attached importance to what SDP had said?

LKY : Even if only 5% voted for them, we would still consider very important that the rest of the population knows what was uttered was a pack of lies.

Ravi : Mr Lee, would you agree with me that a government which is so insensitive, sorry, sensitive to unfair criticisms, confrontation, slight innuendos that it feels that it must nail every lie in court, is one that lacks confidence in the intelligence of its electorate?

LKY : Counsel must understand that when you spread this message across the population, unless it is challenged, that message will begin to sink home. Repeatedly, it will sink home. And we have repeatedly disprove it. That's why the PAP is up and standing. That's why I'm here and may I point out to counsel that there's a guillotine of 2 hours and the interjections by him and his two other defendants means that there are no questions of relevance to ask me and put me on the spot but are playing for time to let the time run out. My counsel knows the game. He's kept me informed. I have been a counsel myself. I know exactly what the game is. If they have imporatant devastating revelations to make, they wouldn't be allowed you to put all these irrelevant questions to me because it is time-wasting.

Ravi : Mr Lee, with due respect to you, if my questions have been irrelevant, the court is there to abjudicate on those matters -

LKY : You are wasting the time of the court!

Ravi : Mr Lee, are you the judge here?

LKY : I'm not but you are asking me for my opinion and I have to give it -

Ravi : Please don't usurp the role of the judge, Mr Lee. I have been extremely respectful as you can see. I have a role to play. You must understand an unenviable one too and I don't have the privilege of a glass of water but I would definitely ask that you must answer my question. It is not up to you to make remarks about my questions and the same equality before the rule of law must apply, Mr Lee. And I will pursue my next question, Mr Lee. With due respect, Mr Lee, you must understand that you must bear with me however you disgree with me, however you feel that I may not be the counsel to be asking you the questions, if you do feel that way too, but respect that I'm also a member of the bar.

LKY : May I remind counsel that he's wasting the guillotine time.

Judge : Mr Ravi, please carry on.

Ravi : Isn't it part of our legal system that as opposed to litigation, mediation is an option?

Singh : What is the relevance of that?

(LKY laughs)

Judge : Disallowed. Carry on, Mr Ravi. Next question please.

Ravi : Mr Lee, could you consider mediation?

Singh : Sir -

LKY : May I - your honour, it is so bizarre a question I will need Soloman to be revived and I don't believe Soloman can mediate between a psychopath and sane, rational people.

Ravi : I see. Then all mediations must fail?

LKY : No, I'm saying in this specific case, you're suggesting an absurdity.

Ravi : Mr Lee, have you suffered any damage or is your integrity still intact after the defamatory statements have been uttered?

LKY : I haven't carried a poll but I'm quite sure at least 80% would consider my reputation intact but I cannot say it's a 100%.

Ravi : Even God can't say, Mr Lee.

(pause)

Ravi : Mr Lee, is it the case that you are bringing this action in your personal capacity as an individual?

LKY : That's what the law requires me to do. You know that.

Ravi : Are you here to defend your personal reputation or your government's reputation?

LKY : As a matter of form, I'm here in my personal capacity to defend my reputation but in fact it is the reputation of the leaders of the PAP and I do not successfully pursue this action, we will suffer terrible damage. The damage is not in this court. The damage is with the standing of this government with its own people. And that is what this is all about and therefore when I appear as a plaintiff, I'm really representing the whole leadership of the PAP.

Ravi : I see. So you have come to represent, to protect the reputation of the PAP and the government in this court?

LKY : I have said that the law requires us to sue in our individual capacity but in actual fact, the impact of any adverse outcome is on the whole government and the PAP.

Ravi : So you have come to the court to defend the entire government and the PAP, am I correct?

LKY : I thought counsel understand English?

Ravi : No, Mr Lee, I don't understand Greek. Mr Lee, I'm here -

Singh : Your honour, that is an insulting question that's gone on the record. Mr Ravi should know that. He should also know that counsel is not permitted to insult a witness but he's chosen to do that and let it be.

CSJ : Your honour, I think this objection is out of line. I think Davinder Singh is trying to -

Singh : The second point -

Judge : Mr Chee, you will have your turn -

CSJ : Intimidate the SDP's counsel -

Judge : Dr Chee, you will have your turn. Mr Singh.

Singh : Your honour, the second point is that the witness has already explained twice that whilst he sues in his personal capacity, if he fails, then the entire government and leadership is affected but he is here in his personal capacity.

Ravi : Mr Lee, I apologise if you have been offended by anything that I said earlier because I thought we had the latitude. Not mean to insult you when I said, you know, I won't go into that - what I said earlier - but I will pursue this question -

LKY : May I suggest, your honour, that -

Ravi : Your honour, I'm here to ask questions. There is no suggestion for the witness how this course or conduct of proceedings should be made and I with due respect urge the bench to have some control over this matter and the witness.

Judge : Yes, please carry on, Mr Ravi.

Ravi : Thank you, your honour. So you have come to the court to bring a representative action under the cover of a personal action?

Singh : I object, your honour, the same question was asked -

Ravi : Your honour, I won't pursue that question.

Judge : Mr Ravi, that's not what the witness said. Please carry on. Next question.

Ravi : I put it to you, Mr Lee, this defamation suit is a cynical abuse of the legal system to commence personal proceedings built upon a desire to protect the institutions of government. Yes or no?

LKY : No!

Ravi : Thank you, Mr Lee. Mr Lee, would you refer to page 42 of your affidavit?

LKY : Yes.

Ravi : And page 42, para 101. You say that CSJ's hatred of me and you say that 101 para A, CSC is CSJ's sister - do you follow, Mr Lee?

LKY : Yes.

Ravi : And is politically allied with CSJ and his cause against the government. What is Dr Chee's cause against the government?

LKY : I think you should ask the person next to you.

Ravi : Mr Lee, I can't be asking Mr Davindar Singh for that. Oh, I'm sorry. But I am saying that I'm asking you, that it's your affidavit, you and "his cause against the government and PAP and me". I'm asking you what is that cause against the government that you think he (inaudible)?

LKY : His cause against the government is that we have been able to demolish him at every turn that he takes which was wrong and offside.

Ravi : I understand my guillotine is running.

LKY : Yah, helping it to run out and to save -

Ravi : And thank you for accelerating it, Mr Lee. Mr Lee, you said that - are you aware that the Democrat was published February 2006?

LKY : I've already answered those questions and we're covering old ground. I thought there were a great urgency to ask me powerful questions which are relevant to the reputation and would justify what they have said - that this government is run like the NKF and that we have people like either me, or the Prime Minister, or Mr Goh Chok Tong, is like a T.T. Dorai. That's the implication.

Ravi : Mr Lee, you know that this is assessment of damages. I wish to ask you so many questions against the backdrop of this time, all the constraints, but I can't but since the second and the third defendents have been subject to this time, with due respect, I end my cross-examination.

LKY : You've run out of questions then.

Ravi : Mr Lee, please don't challenge me. It is not necessary.

(pause)

CSJ : Mr Lee, we get to meet at last.

Continues here at Transcript part ll : CSJ vs LKY

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

PART l

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/05/transcript-excerpts-of-lees-vs-chees.html

PART ll

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/06/transcript-part-ll-csj-vs-lky.html

PART lll

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/06/transcript-part-lll-csj-vs-lky.html

PART lV

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/06/transcript-part-lv-csj-vs-lky.html

PART V

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/06/transcript-part-v-csj-vs-lky.html

PART Vl

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/06/transcript-part-vl-csc-vs-lhl.html

PART Vll

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2008/07/transcript-part-vll-m-ravi-vs-lky.html

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Transcript part Vl - CSC vs LHL

This is the full transcript of Chee Siok Chin's cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong. As a watcher on the public gallery, there were two things of note -

* Lee Hsien Loong's eyes darted towards his counsel ever so often when an awkward question was posed.

* Lee Kuan Yew was not in court during most of the exchange. He arrived and took the seat just as his son was prompted by his counsel Davindar Singh to explain an earlier answer.

But first, some updates :

Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin have been released from prison after serving 11 and 10 days respectively for contempt of court. Visit SDP for updates. Video here.

Gopalan Nair has written his first blog entry since his arrest and detention two weeks ago.

Interesting new blog - It keeps tabs on the physical and mental health of Lee Kuan Yew, and makes a pretty valid case of why his passing will be crucial to Singapore's future.

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

Chee Siok Chin : Good morning, Mr Lee.

Lee Hsien Loong : Good Morning.

CSC : Mr Lee, I hope you do realise that Senior Counsel is making you look rather bad for objecting to almost every question that was raised by the second defendent. He is now saying that he took the decision to strike out our AEIC himself. I have that -

Davindar Singh : Miss Chee should not misunderstand or misinterpret what I said -

CSC : He is making you look as if you cannot hold your own in court.

Singh : What I said and it's on the record -

CSC : My first question to you, Mr Lee is -

Singh : Is that I advised the clients -

CSC : How long have you been the Prime Minister? How long have you held office as Prime Minister of Singapore?

LHL : Since August 2004.

CSC : So that's almost 4 years?

LHL : Yes.

CSC : And during these 4 years as the Prime Minister, how many defamtion suits have you filed or initiated?

(Pause)

Singh : Your honour, what's the relevance of that?

CSC : Mr Singh, please. Let your -

Singh : I do object on the basis of relevance, your honour.

Judge Belinda Ang : Sustained.

CSC : Would I be right to say that you've initiated 2, if not 3, defamation suits whilst in office as Prime Minister?

Singh : Objection based on relevance, your honour.

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : As the leader of the country, Mr Lee, do you believe that it's your job is to look after the development of the people i.e. ensuring that Singaporeans are fed, that no one has to beg for a living, no left is left homeless, every child gets to have the opportunity to go to school, so on and so forth?

LHL : Your honour, this is not the place to read a political manifesto.

CSC : I'm asking you as the leader of the country, just try to answer yes or no. Don't try to avoid the question.

Singh : Can I know, your honour, the relevance of the question?

CSC : It goes into assessing Mr Lee's claim for damages because if he says that he's done -

Singh : Your -

CSC : Wait, sit down, I've not finished. He is going to say that he's worth so much and so much because of what he's done for the country. And so this question is very relevant when it comes to assessing the quantum of damages that he will be demanding for.

Singh : It's not relevant, your honour, because it goes to specific instances. As your honour knows from the decision in Latle and Schpedel (check spelling) which went all the way to the House of Lords, you can give evidence of general reputation, good or bad, but you cannot go into specific instances.

CSC : Are you allowing the question?

Judge : Sustained. Disallowed.

CSC : Mr Lee, you had said in your testimony yesterday that the responsibility of the Prime Minister is to know the pulse of the people in the country, and if they are unhappy. Do you agree?

LHL : Yes.

CSC : And do you feel that you can feel that pulse?

LHL : I try my best.

CSC : What do you think that pulse tells you?

Singh : Relevance, your honour?

Judge : Explain yourself, Miss Chee.

CSC : Your honour, as the Prime Minister who says that -

Judge : The relevance of your question to the assessment of damages.

CSC : It is important to know the pulse of the people. It goes to show whether or not he knows what is happening on the ground -

Judge : Miss -

CSC : And that he is fulfilling his job, his duty, as the Prime Minister. I don't see how this is irrelevant when it comes to assessing his character, his merits, his competence, as the Prime Minister?

Singh : Your honour, the people of Singapore have already voted the government in with an overwhelming majority. While it would be interesting to have a discussion with Miss Chee on these issues, the question ultimately is how does it goes into the question of assessment of damages?

Judge : Question is disallowed.

CSC : As the Prime Minister, as the leader of the country, do you know, can you feel it when you come up with policies and people, citizens are unhappy with these policies -

Judge : Miss Chee, move on.

CSC : I'm moving on. I've just asked another question - what's the irrelevance, what's the shaking of your head mean? You said that a nod doesn't mean affirmative in chambers -

Judge : Irrelevant.

CSC : Now you shake your head, I need to know to ask you -

Judge : I've just answered you. Move on.

CSC : Thank you. Mr Lee, have you been to food centres to eat?

LHL : Yes.

CSC : Have you seen old, blind, cripppled people selling tissue paper. Have to ever been to public toilets where you see the elderly washing the toilets. In the food centres, do you see people in their 60s, 70s, bent over, collecting dishes to eke out a living? Do you see all that?

Singh : Your honour, apart from demonstrating that in Singapore, old people have the dignity of employment, that question is irrelevant to this court.

CSC : Dignity of employment?

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : When you are in your 70s, when you are bent over, when you have to work because the government does not take care of you? Dignity?

Judge : Miss Chee -

CSC : You've given a whole new meaning to the word "dignity", Mr Singh.

Judge : This is not the forum for those sort of questions -

CSC : Perhaps you could create your own Oxford, or -

Judge : Miss Chee -

CSC : Davindar Singh's dictionary. Have you ever taken rides in MRTs, public transport like buses, SMRT, SBS Transit buses, Mr Lee?

Singh : Objection, your honour.

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : Do you know what it's like for Singaporeans to squeeze like sardines, smell each other's breath in MRTs and have to wait, sometimes for a half hour, for the bus to arrive?

Singh : Objection, your honour.

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : Do you know what it feels like? (Pause) You've read, I'm sure you have, that Singaporeans go across the causeway to buy medicine despite the promise of health care not being denied to every Singaporean, that many Singaporeans find it unaffordable, or too expensive, to get medical health-care treatment in Singapore?

Singh : Your honour, again I object and I would just say that all my objections are premised on nothing but the law. My duty is to assist the court in terms of what is and is not relevant, and I would not be discharging my duty if I did not opose and attempt to waste the court's time on irrelevant matters.

CSC : Is that question irrelevant?

Judge : I've already said to you, Miss Chee -

CSC : No, no, no, he objected it -

Judge : That this courtroom is not the proper forum for the questions you have asked.

CSC : He objected it but he doesn't make the decision whether it's irrelevant or not. But I've asked the question. You did not say it was sustained until I had to ask you again. Mr Singh stood up, made that objection -

Judge : Question is disallowed.

CSC : So do I take it that every Mr Singh objects, it is automatic that you sustain his objections?

Judge : It depends on your question, Miss Chee.

CSC : And so for every question I've asked has been objected to and you've upheld that -

Judge : Because, like I've said, those questions are not relevant to this courtroom -

CSC : But I've explained to you how relevant it is. Even if it's relevant, your honour, it seems to me that you will say that it's irrelevant. (Pause) Mr Lee, it has been reported that you are paid $3.7 million a year for your role as Prime Minister. Can you confirm that to this court?

Singh : Objection.

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : Do you know, Mr Lee, that you are the highest paid Prime Minister in the world, 6 times more than George Bush. Your salary is equivalent to 8 leaders in the European countries, do you know that?

Singh : Objection, you honour.

CSC : Do you know that you are in the Guiness Book Records for the highest-paid prime minister?

Singh : Objection, your honour. Your honour, it might assist Miss Chee -

CSC : Then -

Singh : If she looks at our written assessment on the assesssment of damages for the striking out of our affidavit, it does set out what under law is permissable as cross-examination -

CSC : You have used the law -

Singh : And the reason -

CSC : To thwart this entire proceeding. I have a few more minutes so please sit down so that I can continue with my questions.

Singh : The reason I do this is because she has a few more minutes and I don't want her to throw those minutes away.

CSC : Thank you very much. Thank you for your consideration. That is the first consideration you've shown in court, albeit one that's veiled.

Singh : There -

CSC : So please sit down. Let me continue with my questioning.

Singh : There are relevant areas that she can inquire into.

CSC : Mr Lee, this trial today is about assessing damages that you will be demanding for. Tell me, how do you assess your worth? Do you assess it according to how much you are paid? How do you assess your worth?

Singh arose.

CSC : Let Mr Lee - he was about to open his mouth and answer it. Please, Mr Singh, you are really making your client look very bad, very very bad.

Singh : Your honour, I just want to say this before the witness respond that Miss Chee may not know but the assessment of damages has nothing to do with one's salary.

Judge : Yes.

LHL : I leave it entirely to the court to assess how much damages is appropriate. There are principles, there are precedents and the arguments have all been made.

CSC : Do you assess your own worth as a public servant? As leader of the country?

Judge : Irrelevant.

CSC : What are you -

(Pause)
CSC : Mr Lee, you had said that as Prime Minister, you lead your government based on honesty, integrity, meritocracy and competence. Am I right?

LHL : Yes.

CSC : Do you believe that cabinet ministers in Singapore, including yourself, have obtained their positions through meritocracy and competence?

LHL : This is a system we work. We strive our best to reach the ideal. We are always trying to improve and do better.

CSC : Thank you. Do you believe that you were appointed Prime Minister on your own merit, in your own competence?

LHL : Yes

CSC : Do you think that if your father had not been the former Prime Minister of Singapore, and that's none other than Mr Lee Kuan Yew, you would still be the Prime Minister of Singapore today?

LHL : It is hypothetical question but I would say yes.

CSC : Well, it's very good to see the leader of the country so confident. Reassuring, really. Apart from yesterday, Mr Lee, have we ever cross roads before? Have we ever met before?

LHL : No, we have not met personally but what I said about your brother Dr Chee Soon Juan applies equally to you.

CSC : That would be? Would you care to repeat?

LHL : That would be I do not know you as an individual personally but I know your public record, what you have done. It doesn't go back quite as far as your brother in 1992 but it's not a short record neither. It extends at least from 1997.

CSC : Alright, thank you for answering with so much depth. If you do not know me on a personal basis, how did you come to make this allegation - because these are very strong words, Mr Lee, very strong words, yup? Do you agree with me? Words like "revulsion", words like "venom". "Venom" - poisonous, "deep-seated hatred", "malice" against you if you do not know me? You said yersterday that one of the reasons you had used these words were because we had unfurled this banner that says "Free Singapore from the Lees" at one of our rallies.

LHL : Yes, there are many reasons and one of the other reason, this defamation case - matter came up, everybody who was involved immediately apologize and explained that they had no intention of saying these things and were not even aware that these things were said, but you and Dr Chee insisted that these statements were totally justified and that you were going to prove your case and that you were going to fight through to the bitter end so I conclude that there is a strong sentiment against me.

CSC : Yes, yes , but unfortunately you have instructed your counsel to ensure that despite words "fight to the bitter end", you've instructed your counsel to ensure that that doesn't happen. Look at all that assessment of damages - all 14 - struck out, AEIC struck out, list of documents struck out, this morning imposing a guillotine which he says that he did it on his own.

LHL : Well, unfortunately, there is a process for settling defamation cases. There is a due process. Each side has to make its filings and the pleadings have to show justification on basis for the defamation and if there is no basis, there is a process for them to be struck out and if they are struck out -

CSC : You see, we were not given the chance to show -

LHL : May I reply, your honour?

CSC : That there was a basis -

Judge : Yes, please continue.

LHL : May I reply, your honour?

CSC : That there was no chance for us to show that there was a basis -

Judge : Continue, Mr Lee, continue.

LHL : There's a process for dealing with pleadings and defences and for defences to be struck out and if the defence is struck out, for an appeal to be filed, in good time, against the striking out action so that the matter can be abjugated at a higher level and in this case, the striking out was ruled and long periods passed and nothing happened until long after the deadline for filing an appeal has passed and then you and your brother, and the SDP decided to file an appeal many months late -

CSC : Mr Lee, I have 5 more minutes. Do not waste my time.

LHL : And therefore, this is the process of the law.

CSC : Alright, thank you. Obviously, you've regurgitated, vomited out everything that Mr Singh has been saying so -

LHL : Your honour, these are facts on the record -

CSC : Your honour, may I please go on. I have 5 more minutes. Thank you. (Pause) Is it not true that your father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was the Prime Minister of Singapore, he's now the Minister Mentor. You are the current Prime Minister and your wife Madam Ho Ching is the CEO of Temasek Holdings, is that true?

Singh : Objection, your honour.

Judge : Sustained.

Singh : There's no relevance.

CSC : Mr Lee, do you know the current population in Singapore? Numbers, that is. What is the current population in Singapore?

Singh : What's the relevance of that, your honour?

CSC : Your honour, in his affidavit it says that the New Democrat was widely circulated. I want to establish how widely circulated it is.

Singh : Your honour, it's in their own documents. They said that they sold the New Democrat and circulated it to 5000 people in the heat of the elections.

CSC : So what is the population of Singapore, Mr Lee?

Singh : Again, your honour, I object.

CSC : Your honour, are you sustaining his objection? Are you allowing me that question?

Judge : Yes, allowed, Go on.

CSC : Yes, allowed, Mr Lee?

LHL : The population of Singapore is about 4.6 million people.

CSC : 4.6 million, very good, thank you. Now if you turn with me to page 22 of volume 1 of your AEIC.

LHL : Yes.

CSC : Para 42. The quote there. "A Singapore Democratic Party member told CPJ that the party had sold around 5000 copies of the 10,000 copies printed" and so and so forth. "5000 copies" and you say that the population in Singapore - and it goes on to say next paragraph 43 - that "the words had therefore reach a very large segment of the public". Do your math. Mr Lee, do you have a calculator there?

LHL : No, your honour.

CSC : Then I'm sure your mind is astute enough to do a very simple mathematical - and work it out - what is 5000 out of 4.6 million? I'll give you sometime to do this mental sum thing, you know it's been a long time since we've subjected to that.

LHL : Thank you, your honour. Your honour, the point is not the number of copies but the depth of the circulation -

CSC : No, no, no, no, Mr Lee, I've asked you a question so please, just answer. If you don't know, say you don't know. If you can't work it out in your mind, just say "you can't work it out in your mind". So, my question again, so please direct Mr Lee to answer that question - what is 5, I'm sorry, what is 5000 out of 4.6 million?

Singh : I'm sure Miss Chee knows it because she has calculated it. Maybe she wants to tell us what the number is -

CSC : No, no, leave it. Look, don't answer Mr Lee's question. If Mr Lee cannot answer the question, let him say it for himself, Mr Singh.

Singh : It's not the question of whether he can or cannot answer the question -

CSC : Yes it is -

Singh : It's just the question of saving time-

CSC : It's just a matter of - I've asked Mr Lee a question and the question was directed to him, not to you. So kindly sit down, let Mr Lee continue -

Singh : Your honour -

CSC : Whether or not he knows the answer. If he doesn't know the answer, say so.

Singh : Your honour, I can object to this but I don't want to because it's a number that Miss Chee knows. If she know the number, get on with it, simple as that.

CSC : Mr - yes, as in -

Judge : Do you know the number?

CSC : Are you going to allow Mr Lee to answer that question?

Judge : I haven't object to it, did I?

CSC : I don't know.

Judge : Yes, Mr Lee?

LHL : Your honour, 5000 divided by 4.6 million is about 1 in a 1000. That counts every infant, every foreigner and all those -

CSC : Foreigner? 4.6 -

LHL : Yes, 4.6 million includes non-citizens.

CSC : Thank you. Okay, 1 out of a thousand, that would make it 0.0001?

LHL : I think you have one zero too many.

CSC : So you can answer that question. 0.001% of the population. 0.001 is a "very large segment of the public?" Think. 0.001 of Singaporeans and yet the claim that the New Democrat was "widely circulated", reached a "very large segment of the public." It's very strange that 0.001 constitutes "large segment".

Singh : Is that a question, your honour?

CSC : Now, your AEIC - page 23, could you turn to page 23?

LHL : Yes.

CSC : Beside that, it says - the third line of para 44 - I'll read that out, "the words and, or their gist, were indeed widely and prominently published. they were republished in Straits Times A, Straits Times again B, Straits Times C, New Paper D and Today newspaper E. Do you think the re-publishing of these State-controlled newspapers have reached a larger segment than the New Democrat did?

LHL : Your honour, paragraph 44 is quite clear. The republication was a consequence of the initial publication -

CSC : Can you answer the question? Do you think it reached a wider -

LHL : Yes, of course, therefore "indirectly the initial publication has caused an enormous dissemination" -

CSC : Just answer the question. I don't need you to repeat, or to clarify. Answer the question - if you think that these papers - the re-published articles have reached a larger segment than the New Democrat ever did?

LHL : Yes, of course, as a consequences of the publication of the New Democrat -

CSC : Thank you. Let me go on to the next question -

Singh : Sorry, the answer has yet to be given -

CSC : He has said "yes" so thank you.

Singh : Miss Chee should understand that the witness is allowed to answer the question -

CSC : He has answered the question, thank you.

Singh : Your honour, may I have permission for Mr Lee to complete his answer?

LHL : Your honour, Miss Chee is trying to establish that she is not answerable for the subsequent publication in the Straits Times -

CSC : You do not know what I'm trying to establish. Please don't claim to know -

LHL : That is a matter of law the lawyers will argue -

CSC : Thank you, so why bring it up when you're on the witness stand -

LHL : And I think that is a matter of fact -

CSC : And not as a lawyer but as a plaintiff? (Pause) Right, let me go on to the next question. Page 59 of AEIC.

LHL: Yes.

CSC : Paragraph 139. You have said -

LHL : Sorry, 139? 140?

CSC : Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, my apologies, 140. It said that "every step of the way, CSJ and CSC have attempted to use and abuse the court process to attack me for their own political ends. They did so by publishing the most outlandish statements about me. Would you care to recall what some of these "outlandish" statements or remarks were?

LHL : They are listed in paragraph 141, 142 and 143 and 144 and 145 and many other paragraphs.

CSC : Those are just reports, right? The newspapers -

LHL : And if there's any doubt, your conduct and Dr Chee's conduct this morning leaves no doubt that -

CSC : I have not asked that of you - Mr Lee, please answer the question - what were the "outlandish" remarks -

Singh : Your honour, the answer -

CSC : Statements that -

LHL : Your honour, the answer is in my affidavit.

CSC : No, it is not. Could you please tell the court what were the "outlandish" remarks that you claimed that we have made against you? Conduct, remarks - two different things. And I'm sure we all know this. I'm asking you could you quote from that - you said that it's found in 141, 142, 143 - please quote to us, to me, what some of these "outlandish" remarks that you claimed that we have made against you, please?

Singh : Your honour, if this this cross-examination is to credit, the answer has already been given and as I demonstrated by the authorities yesterday, they must accept the answer. If they don't like it, they can submit on it. But the answer has already been given and your honour, the guillotine fell about 7 minutes ago, your honour. So Miss Chee should be reminded that she's well past her time.

Judge : Yes, Miss Chee?

CSC : Are you allowing me to continue?

Judge : Question is disallowed.

CSC : Mr Lee, Mr Francis Seow had said the ministers in Singapore, and that includes you, are not worth a cent that they are paid. Do you agree?

Singh : I object, your honour, Mr Francis Seow doesn't have the guts to turn up in court himself so he shouldn't use the -

CSC : Let us not take pot-shots -

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : At the person who is not in court. I'm sorry, your honour.

Judge : Question disllowed.

CSC : Do you sleep well at night, Mr Lee?

Singh : Objection, your honour.

(Pause)
CSC : Do you know that as the leader of the country that your government deprives Singaporeans of much-needed welfare for the poor, the elderly and the infirm, that HDB prices are artificially inflated, and that many of us are not able to draw on our CPF savings even though we have tens of thousands of dollars in there and all this time, when Singaporeans are left rather ignored -

Singh : Objection, your honour.

CSC : By the government -

Judge : Sustained.

CSC : While you live your life as a millionaire minister?

Singh : Objection, your honour. This is a classic example of the abuse that I had referred to earlier where now that your honour has given them the indulgence of a bit more time, it's been abused for the purpose of making all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated, and speculative allegations.

Judge : Two minutes more, Miss Chee.

CSC : I would like to pass on this report that we have here. It goes into assessing the quantum of damages because this report talks about - Well, why don't I circulate this report and we'll talk about -

Singh : Your honour, I like to see a copy of the document so that I can assist the court?

CSC : Certainly, I have made quite enough copies. You need a couple of minutes to digest that?

Singh : No your honour, I don't need a couple of minutes to digest that. Your honour, it is completely irrelevant as your honour would see. It has to do with the issue of salaries which your honour has already ruled on. It is also a reliance on specific instance which is irrelevant. It's well past the point of liability as well, your honour, so for all those reasons I object. Your honour, I have no objection in principle of documents being produced in the course of evidence-in-chief of cross-examination but they have to be relevant and this isn't.

Judge : Yes. Miss Chee, you want to demonstrate relevance?

CSC : Like I said, if you look at the last paragraph of the article - for continuation, let me read a couple of paragraphs before that. Fourth paragraph, or third paragraph, rather, from the bottom. "German Chancellor Angela Merkel was named Ford's most powerful woman for the second straight year and who recently was critical of excessive executive salaries in the private sector, is paid around $318, 000" and these are U.S. dollars I believe they are talking about. "In Japan, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said last September that he would take 30% on his salary, $355, 000, and that other ministers would give up 10% of their pay but the top of the three, by some degree, is Singapore's Premier Lee Hsien Loong, who following a controversial round of pay increases, is said to be receiving a salary of $2.05 million, which is equivalent to $3.5 million dollars by the end of next year. While the rational of the increase was, as the Hague group found in its research, the need to keep government salaries competitive, Mr Lee said that he would donate his raise to charity." Oh, by the way, have you, Mr Lee, donated your pay increase to charity?

LHL : Yes, your honour.

Judge : Miss Chee, that's irrelevant. The time's up.

CSC : I still have one question to -

Judge : Alright. Just one last question.

CSC : So Mr Lee, do you agree that, as Forbes has pointed out, that you are the highest-paid leader of a country in the world.

Singh : Objection, your honour.

Judge : Sustained.

Singh : Your honour, in re-examination, because Mr Lee was not given the opportunity to explain the answer by Miss Chee. Can you turn to your affidavit at paragraphs 42 and 43, page 22.

LHL : Yup.

Singh : It was suggested to you that only 5000 copies were circulated and therefore that's inconsequential. What do you have to say to that?

LHL : First of all, I do not know how many people read those 5000 copies because each copy could have been circulated to many readers. Secondly, each time the same copy was sold, the same libel is being repeated and broadcasted to a crowd because this was not just a distribution from a shop but Dr Chee, Miss Chee and several others going around looping it about as broadly as possible, as loudly as possible to achieve as much impact as possible. And thirdly, similar allegations went on to the website where I have no doubt, further eyeballs would have seen them. So I think 5000 copies is not a measure of how many people read these libels. Or, the word of mouth after the article have been read, circulating in the grapevine, in the coffeeshops, poisonoulsy distorted, more and more lurid, more and more damaging, impossible to trace except in court where the truth will out.

Singh : Thank you, I've no further questions, your honour.

Judge : Yes, the witness is released.

Singh : Thank you, Mr Lee.

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