Lee Kuan Yew testifies to a laudatory letter that was never sent by an international legal organization
It was the kind of error that would earn a Singapore opposition politician a trial for perjury, probably with a heavy fine and perhaps a jail term. But when Lee Kuan Yew testified in the recent trial of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan probably “misspoke” – told a crucial untruth, deliberate or not.
More in comments
2 comments:
Singapore’s Minister Mentor Slips Up Under Oath
Asia Sentinel - 09 July 2008
Lee Kuan Yew testifies to a laudatory letter that was never sent by an international legal organization
It was the kind of error that would earn a Singapore opposition politician a trial for perjury, probably with a heavy fine and perhaps a jail term. But when Lee Kuan Yew testified in the recent trial of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan probably “misspoke” – told a crucial untruth, deliberate or not.
Lee, Singapore’s octogenarian Minister Mentor and the country’s first Prime Minister, volunteered under oath during cross-examination in the May trial of Chee that the International Bar Association, following its October 2007 convention in Singapore, wrote a letter to the organizers, the Law Society of Singapore, describing “how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary…Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practiced throughout the judiciary.”
In fact, says the International Bar Association, it did no such thing. On July 2 the association told the Singapore Democratic Party, according to the SDP website, that there was no such letter. The Law Society of Singapore also denied it had received a letter from the association, according to the website. Then, on July 8, the IBA issued a report expressing concerns about the “limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore.”
In October, against protests by international human rights organizations because of the lack of independence of Singapore’s judiciary, the International Bar Association, which claims some 30,000 individual lawyers and more than 195 Bar Associations across the globe, held its conference in Singapore. At the time, the IBA defended itself by saying that “It is not uncommon that countries selected to host IBA events are themselves challenged to adhere to international human rights norms and laws. The IBA has held, or supported, events in Nigeria, Mexico, Jordan, the UAE, Russia, Iraq, Peru, Malawi, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Swaziland, Colombia, the former Yugoslavia, Poland, the West Bank and Gaza, Cambodia, Venezuela, and China, all countries struggling to uphold the rule of law.”
The conference was held against a backdrop of continuing controversy over Singapore’s judiciary. Members of the Lee family have repeatedly bankrupted opposition political figures through libel suits and forced international news organizations to apologize and pay damages for libeling them. The Lees have never lost a libel suit in Singapore despite the fact that international law scholars often scoff at the charges as trumped up. Nor have they won one outside Singapore.
In May, Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, were sentenced to jail after a contentious trial in which the two were judged to have “scandalized the court” and “obstructed the administration of justice.” It was during that trial, in which the Chees were accused of yet again having libeled Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, that this exchange took place between Lee Kuan Yew and Chee Soon Juan, who was conducting his own cross-examination:
Chee Soon Juan: The whole entire matter rests because you want to turn this fight into one of a personal duel. I’m not interested. What I’m interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr Lee. It is not about me. It’s about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy - that is going to last for all eternity.
Lee Kuan Yew: Your honor, the International Bar Association decided to honor Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3,000 lawyers there. I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organizers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary –
Chee Soon Juan: Standards of the MRT or standards of the rule of law?
Lee Kuan Yew: Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practiced throughout the judiciary.”
Lee later described Chee as a “near psychopath.” Chee responded by calling Lee a “pitiable figure.” Both Chees were sentenced to 10 days in jail for the same offenses by Supreme Court Justice Belinda Ang, who also charged Chee Soon Juan with contempt for accusing the court of being biased and of having prejudged the hearing, as well as not obeying her orders to stop particular lines of questioning. It was the seventh time Chee had been sent to jail in Singapore, four for speaking in public without a permit, once for attempting to leave the country without a permit after being invited to a conference in Istanbul for the World Movement for Democracy’s Fourth Assembly in April 2006, and once before for “scandalizing the judiciary.”
Singapore has been under widespread criticism by press groups and human rights organizations for decades for what they term political repression and restrictions against free speech.
The International Bar Association’s report, titled “Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore,” makes 18 recommendations which the association urges the Singapore Government to implement as a matter of priority.
In its conclusion, the 72-page report states that “Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest order. In the modern era of globalisation, isolationist policies and attitudes are no longer tenable. The international community, through the mechanisms of the United Nations, regional forums and non-governmental human rights bodies, has a role to play in commenting on practices that it perceives to fall short of international standards.
“The (association’s human rights institution) strongly encourages Singapore to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner, and to take steps to implement international standards of human rights throughout Singapore. It is imperative that Singapore now takes its place as a leader in the region, not only in business and economic development, but in human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”
Singapore’s government, the report continues, “is currently failing to meet established international standards in these areas.” Reports of opposition candidates being targeted for criticizing the government, it says, “are of significant concern and threaten democracy and the rule of law in Singapore.” It describes an “apparent climate of fear and self-censorship surrounding the press in Singapore,” and that the “increasing tendency for high profile and respected publications to pay large out-of-court settlements to avoid litigation with PAP officials and the continued run of success within in-court claims is worrying.
垂帘听政？ べ_べ
吁成功者回馈社会 – 何不以身作则？
8 July 2008
曾经经过李见习军官步操的人，肯定对他的跨出左脚、扬起左手；跨出右脚、扬起右手的木偶式身态印象深刻。后来有幸知道，这样的人据说绝顶聪明，而事实上也证明了，因为他就是我们现在的李总理。不过，绝顶聪明不等于绝顶智慧，这是很可惜的。有句成语说：“成也萧何、败也萧何”，这句话反映在李资政父子身上，就使人感慨万千。新加坡人当然不是弱智，建国以来，在三个总理之间，我们看到了一个很诡异的现象 – 李光耀当总理的时候，能力是多么的强大而使人信服。可惜的是，当轮到由吴作栋作总理以后，李光耀却必须留下来资政。这几乎等于说，吴先生还不足以独当重任，还必须李光耀给以护航才行。这就给与世人深刻的印象，即吴总理的能力还差李光耀一个层次。然而，令人意想不到的是，李光耀对吴作栋不放心，对自己的儿子的能力更加不放心。反映到内阁上，结果现在的李总理竟然出现了两位资政。
新加坡民主政治的吊诡，就在于有了总理为什么还要资政？而且，由前任总理担任资政，那么那是太上皇呢还是垂帘听政？确实是让人费尽疑猜。我从来不认为李总理是阿斗，然而，他身边的两个资政，会不会使他觉得绑手绑脚？使人对他的行政能力感觉狐疑？因为根据常理来说，处于权势巅峰的人，总是会有卧榻之旁，岂容他人鼾睡的焦虑。李总理对着两位前总理，一位还是老豆，那么在政治上的运筹帷幄，是不是还能够得心应手？是一个无从阐释的疑案。
李总理说：“得不到民心得不到选票”，这句表面话说得漂亮，其实不堪一击。如果没有时时策划改变选区的范围、如果没有集选区这个奥步，那么，民心和选票或许可以挂钩，然而，也得没有像萨达姆一样的专横强霸才行。今天读报，看到了[总理吁成功者回馈社会]这则新闻，心里头不禁感慨异常。言犹在耳，对于一个刚刚提起过“没有人会拒绝黄金”的人，他的话是如此的缺乏说服力和让人感觉恶心。
有时候，不说不知道，一说吓一跳。这个以一句“高处不胜寒”备受称赞的大人物，竟然不晓得作为政治人物，以身作则是最重要了。当你在劝人行善的时候，无论说得多么好听，就算把美国历来多名慈善家如钢铁业巨头安德鲁•卡内基、石油大亨约翰•洛克菲勒，以及“比尔和梅琳达盖茨基金”的微软公司创办人盖茨等作为例子，再加上本地先辈设立的李氏基金和邵氏基金等等，都不如你李总理的一言一行来得诚恳。人家说：“以德服人”，是的，然而利用别人的‘德’来服人，这也未免异想天开了。
说真的，我现在想做善事的意愿是少多了，NKF的例子，再加上李总理的例子。我聪明多了，我已经决定响应李总理的呼唤，然而，前提是公司得给我加薪。那么我倒是肯定将全部加薪充作慈善用途，就像李总理那样。当然，我也会劝告同侪说，不必学我一样。
Post a Comment