Kwik Updates :) PoThePanda & Others

Gary’s medical report of his examination in 2006 was received from the DPP John Lu on the day before the return date for Gary’s PTC on 30th June 2009. As it turned out, Gary was diagnosed as not having any mental illness. Thank goodness I strongly objected to his remand in the IMH on that day of trial 3rd June 2009. This was so even though i was ill and Gary was supposed to conduct the trial himself.

3rd June 2009 was spent largely in Court , after which I was tied up with my so many other matters and I fell ill the second time in a month that i could not prepare Gary’s representations on time.

My whatever little time was also made even more scarce as I was also dragged into a lawsuit. As it turned out, some idiot has chosen to sue me for grounds which are very much frivolous. I was surprised to find out that the documents to be served were in fact for a civil suit.

Very often many others who would shiver and urinate even before a writ is served, I however could not contain my amusement when i was served the writ. I was smirking and giggling as i signed for it and i actually had the cheek to ask the plaintiff on what grounds an action should be taken against me. She did not reply in substance but still insisted on her course of action. I decided not to argue with her over her intended course of action.

I was then put through the paces of entering an appearance to this action for the 2nd time in my life as the Defendant – and not the lawyer

Perhaps i have had enough time playing lawyer in the Courts, God’s trying to get me immune to appearing as accused and Defendant so as to ready myself for the hotter things to come.

Still it is not a laughing matter seriously – the Memorandum of Appearance cost me SGD220 which partly explains why i only smiled, giggled and smirked i did not burst out laughing.

As it has turned out, the SPF has not taken action against me yet shall i ought to be eternally grateful? Should i then withdraw my article? Well i think the answer is no.

Principles of Intellectual honesty and integrity mandate that i keep the article uploaded because if they do take that step, the article would then be well justified - I would also be put through the trouble of logging in to put that article up again.

So i guess, better leave it up – since it looks good on the blog site anyway Till then… there is still so much to be done….

I want to retire from Politics – and they are giving me the chance to go with a bang! :)

Of late I had been hit with a heavy bout of lethargy because work has been treating me badly and I was nursing a depressed mood because my bikes were breaking down and my audio system is not performing the way it should.

My political comrades could not pull me out of the rut simply because they did not understand how i feel. They are firstly non-lawyers, secondly non-audiophiles and thirdly non-bikers.

I have 6 amplifiers and 3 were in the workshop, the other 3 dont perform well and were spewing noise.

I have 3 motorcycles, 1 is perpetually in the workshop, 1 is almost breaking down and the final I still do not have the balls to ride.

I have something like 25 active matters, and I think they don’t bring in enough money.

Worse still, I was summoned for questioning by Mr. S Vikie of Central Police Division, Singapore Police Force for my role in the screening of One Nation Under Lee sometime last year. This investigation came at 12th June 2009 a very opportune time when i was feeling down and depressed. I was told that this morning an entourage of 5 supposed officers came to serve me some papers at my office, the service failed because i was not in simply because my stupid bike was not performing the way it should, i was somewhere on the CTE.

I have not seen the papers yet but i can almost be sure that they are linked to the investigations conducted earlier.

I had decided that i wanted to disengage from it all. But it seems that they would not allow me to. Why? was the question that featured in my head.

The Police had framed a possible charge of me obstructing a public servant in the situation of the private movie screening some time last year [more writings soon on this event to show how stupid the entire system has become]. This charge carries a fine of S$2,500/- .

The fine of S$2,500 stared at me in the face. it was no surprise. If i am convicted of this charge i would be disqualified from running in elections.

Now why would they want to disqualify me from running in the elections? That is the question

Is it because they dare not face me again at the polls and the ballot box? 

Like i said, I really had enough I had originally wanted to retire from politics for good but it seems that certain idiots choose to keep me engaged.

From the way it seems either they like me too much so much so that they want to keep me in the game or they are too worried of my next challenge and are too ballless to face me on the rally stage. In the light of the depression and exhaustion and lethargy, these facts are the solemn confirmation that the right approach to challenge the PAP has been found. Because, this makes them lose their balls.

For the PAPpies reading this, let me say this to you:

The proper way to demolish your opponent would be to find your balls to face him and square off at the proper arena, thereafter seek to give him something like a vote score below the 20% mark by either branding him as a chauvinist, an extremist, a psychopath or you know what. Dig up whatever scandal you can find that will be the challenge

Don’t be a crybaby and hide behind someone’s skirt. And seek to prevent people from contesting against you. It does not work well for your whatever little balls and guts that you may have or whatever shards of self-esteem and psyche still remaining.

Relax boys, though you lack the balls, there is no need to fear actually, because elections are actually a very tedious affair for the opposition.

Furthermore, this elections will also be a non-starter. Firstly things dont look bright enough for a successful challenge. Secondly I don’t think many of us have the funds. I am due to settle the division of matrimonial assets flowing from my divorce and I would find difficulty finding the funds to make the 2nd electoral challenge. Thirdly, the ground has not shifted. Furthermore, relatives are already laughing at my stupidity of not keeping money for myself You see… In Singapore spending your own hard earned money for opposition politics is not deemed as a very wise move

In GE2006, I spent like $13,000 or so on election expenses. That i think it is a brand new choice 400cc bike thrown away, or alternatively 3 very very very capable power amplifiers.

Therefore, if you give me the choice, i actually think i will not be running this round. However, in the event i were to be made to pay S$2,500 to sit out an election that would be a blessing . Firstly i would save money and energy and time. Secondly, i can save the energy and solve my personal issues. Lastly but most importantly,  it further gives me the chance to run down the entire PAP as totally BALLLESS and without the guts to face an opponent like me.  In the realm of politics, to be put in a position to denigrate an entire ruling party like that is like getting manna from heaven.

This allows me to go off the political arena with a bang :) Take it that this is a big thank you from me.

More expressions of gratitude will come soon – in the form of tributes and exaltations of the ruling party never seen before.

The case of PoThePanda – Update

This morning was PoThePanda Gary Tan Yeong Hong’s scheduled trial.

I was ill and on medical leave. As the case was a pro bono matter, Gary bravely offered to do the trial himself. We then readied ourselves for a discharge application to be made at Court this morning.

I arrived in Court to find out that the DPP John Loo had instructions to apply for Gary to be remanded in the IMH for 3 weeks on the basis that he is delusional in his blog postings and that he had been allegedly remanded in IMH before in 2006.

The DPP and myself met the Judge in Chambers and the above was intimated to the Judge. I requested for the documentary proof so that i could take my client’s instructions.

Outside chambers i was shown a faxed letter of 2nd June 2009 [yes today] from Bedok Police Division to the IMH asking for tracing of Gary. The reply from IMH was a handwritten endorsement and fax back of the police letter stating that Gary was “traced, admitted in 2006″.

I verified with Gary that the police had on a previous occasion put him into IMH for an examination but he was cleared of any mental illness. He does not recall that to be in 2006 as he is unable to recall exactly when it occurred.

Together with this information the DPP and myself met the Judge in Chambers. We told the Judge the current position.

DJ Soh Tze Bian recorded in the file that the accused admitted to being admitted to IMH before. I clarified to the DJ that my client instructs that upon that examination he was cleared by IMH to be not suffering from any mental illness.

I asked that the trial be allowed to proceed as Gary was ready to take on the charges even if i was supposed to be discharged. DPP insisted that this was not possible as Gary’s fitness to plead was suspect. I clarified that I cannot proceed to discharge myself given the latest development and I asked for an adjournment to prepare for the DPP’s remand application under Section 308 CPC given the short notice of the application.

The District Judge stood the matter down to 230pm.

Gary and I arrived in Court at about 238pm. There had been a bad jam at Havelock Square. I found out from the DPP that there was no further documentary proof of his admission to IMH we then proceeded to meet the Judge in chambers.

Inside chambers, I informed the Court of Gary’s instructions for me to challenge the Remand application. I had prepared for the remand application throughout the time for lunch [Gary now owes me a big and expensive lunch]. The DPP was minded to proceed to ask for the remand order forthwith. As i had asked for the IMH’s report, the District Judge was minded to adjourn the hearing of the application until the IMH report was made available to both parties. According to the DPP, it was only after the remand application was dealt with and the would be remand allowed to run its course and with the consequent report from the Medical Superintendent would Gary’s fitness to plead for the case be clear. It was only then that the trial could be proceeded with proper.

The topic of discussion then went towards the possibility of the matter getting resolved in a less wasteful manner. Whether or not Gary could consider making representations to the AGC for the charges to be reduced so that he could plead guilty to an acceptable charge and the need to send him to IMH be dispensed with. The DPP at first instance seemed insistent that the remand application had to be made to ensure that Gary was assessed to be fit to plead. District Judge Soh Tze Bian was more decisive, to avoid the convoluted course the matter was now currently on track to take, his Honour stated that if Gary makes the representations and pleads guilty to the offences, there would be no need at all to do whatever remand at IMH. Furthermore the nature of the charge does not necessarily warrant a jail term and that further should not end up with a trial and what remand application.

The indication was that if Gary were to plead guilty he would most probably be let off with a fine. Unless Gary still insisted on a trial then he would need to have his fitness to plead assessed.

I took the opportunity to check with Gary and persuade him and I managed to get him to agree to make representations. This was then intimated to the Judge and the DPP.

The District Judge then gave the following directions: Defence Counsel to make representations to the AGC 2 weeks from today i.e. 17th June 2009. The AGC to reply by 26th June 2009 and to obtain the 2006 IMH report and submit to the Court and Defence Counsel as soon as it is available. PTC is fixed for 30th June 2009 at 230pm. Bail is extended.

The DPP then informed the court that the latest information from the IMH is that Gary had self-admitted himself into the IMH on 29th November 2006 and he was discharged on 1st December 2006. Gary failed to follow up on the treatment prescribed for him. Interestingly the DPP insisted that Gary was never arrested before by the Police. There was no record that the Police arrested him and took him to the IMH.

This case reminds me strongly of another case which i dealt with in the past. The manner in which sometimes such admissions into IMH are processed leaves much to be desired. From experience, there is indeed arbitrariness by the Police and the IMH in dealing with persons brought in for assessment at the IMH and the level of professionalism and transparency leaves much to be desired.

This makes me more keen to look into Gary’s admission into IMH and also my other client’s case.

The Rocky Path Ahead

Life has its cycles.

Of late i am beginning to doubt whether i am in fact suitable for opposition politics and whether or not the fight should carry on.

I am not proposing that we let the PAPpies off and let them have their good time in peace. It is still my conviction that they should be bent over and shafted by someone like me at every single given opportunity.

There is however a limit to my abilities. I have a limit to my patience, my tolerance, my strength and endurance. I have a heart made of flesh just like any other human being. I have the pride which i hold dear just like any other man.

When I engage in combat on a daily basis, at the end of an eventful day, there is always a yearning to return to a cosy home, a warm hug from a pair of waiting arms. A tender and non-judgmental listening ear. Ever supportive words and unconditional acceptance.

When all these things are absent, there is no home to return to.

When there is no home to return to, what is there to fight for?

When there is nothing to fight for, is there even a reason to carry on fighting?

Without a home to return to, even the coolest and least emotional and mightiest warrior will find a fight difficult, the battles wearisome and the burden arduous.

Is it now time to laydown arms? Is it time to turn swords into ploughshares?

Amidst all these thoughts, I am aware that I will qualify to be a Commissioner for Oaths in less than a week’s time.

In any election, there will be a need for Commissioners who can attest the signatures of the deponents to electoral documents and for polling and counting agents to get their Oaths of Secrecy administered.

Who knows, perhaps a lesser supporting role like that might be suitable for me.

As before, I will not know whether I can fill this role until i try. I will not know if i will try unless i come to it.

Till i come to it, there is still this rocky path ahead.

Pleading Guilty to Assembly and Procession without Permit – Why Pay More?

I took part in a protest on 15th March 2008. I was charged for 2 offences on 11th July 2008.

Yesterday, I decided to plead guilty to the charges i was facing as i already had gone through 2 tranches of 2 weeks each. This tranche would be the 5th week. The time spent on going on and on with evasive police witnesses in court was becoming more of a dread day by day.

I decided to plead guilty and disengage from the proceedings as i had my professionalism to my clients as priority. Surayah decided to do the same for reasons of her own.

DPP Issac Tan was visibly happy to know that i have thrown in the towel, the press was there ready to pounce…. ST’s Elena Chong and another reporter which I could not identify was there to report on the proceedings.

The charges were read. Surayah mitigated.

When District Judge James Leong asked me for my mitigation, this was what i said:

“I stand before this court with the dubious distinction of being an officer of the Court charged for offences which i am pleading guilty to.

Under normal circumstances i would be ashamed of myself but this is not the case here. It is my position that the law in question is designed to curb the activities of opposition political parties and it is my duty as a citizen to stand up against a law which violates principles of democracy and freedom.

Not out of defiance or disrespect towards the Court or the prosecution, i must state that I stand first and foremost a citizen of this country and because of my political convictions i cannot say that this will be the only offence.”

DPP Issac Tan jumped on my words and pressed the Court to take note of my lack of remorse.
District Judge James Leong took note of that and i was slapped with $200/- more for each charge.

ST was very quick with the report that i had thrown in the towel and that I had been fined $800 for each of the charges. However absolutely no mention was made by our mainstream media on why was it that i had to pay more?

Carl stopped me outside court and told me that if i had said too much. He told me that if i had stopped midway, i would not have been made to pay the additional S$400/-. So was it worth it? He asked me with a cheeky grin.

I told Carl that the $400 was well worth every cent as i needed to be clear that by pleaing guilty i am not backtracking on the principles and values i tried to push for. To me, i was only being frank to fellow officers of the court [the DPPs Issac Tan, David Low and the APP] an the Judicial Officer District Judge James Leong.

But frankly was being made to pay extra money wise?

To me, someone who has had the audacity to stand for public office,  it was a simple matter of principle, of truthfulness and accountability, of being having the guts to break the law and face the consequences. Furthermore, the $400 is money from my own pocket which i will gladly pay as the price. From my recollection, other politicians have been made to pay sums in excess of S$400,000 for saying things that are objectionable to the powers that be.

Critics will say “In essence, i was made to pay S$1,600/- of my hard earned money [I don't make much anyway ] to the State because of my noseyness in wanting to speak up for my fellow citizens and also of my big mouth during mitigation in Court. This was $400/- more painful than the rest of my co-accused.”

But at the end of the day, the $400/- that was losing was every cent my hard earned money. I don’t mind losing it to stand by principles of truthfulness and accountability.

This obviously pales in comparison with the position of stupidly losing S$4.6 billion of taxpayers’ money under extremely dubious circumstances and wanting to be shrouded under the cloak of secrecy.

For the Public Officers [public servants] reading such a comparison, I am sure they will be able to appreciate the finer differences between the two situations and reckon among the two, which would deserve greater respect.

I think by the above reasoning, i should measure up pretty well. And there are no prizes for guessing where i would stand from a scale of 1 to 10.

PoThePanda Trial Fixed for 3rd June 2009 Internal Investigation Interview 6th May 2009

Down with dog flu, this morning I attended PoThePanda (PTP)’s PTC in Court 3 for his trial fixed on 3rd June 2009.

Later in the afternoon today, PTP met me to make certain clarifications.

To put things in context, PTP had made several police reports relating to the safety of Iskandar and himself. PTP was supposed to be interviewed by the Internal Investigation Department tomorrow. PoThePanda requested for me to be present, i agreed. Over the phone, my particulars were provided to the Police as they requested for them.

After about 15 minutes the Frankie Yeo from the IID called to ask what is my purpose for being there. PTP replied that i was there to witness the proceedings. Frankie then replied that they view that there is no basis for me to be there and they dont want me to be there.

Before PTP put down the phone the, police verified with him again that he was going alone to the interview tomorrow.

My presence was not welcome on this occasion  So PTP will attend at internal investigation tomorrow.

More details can be found at PoThePanda’s blog at www.xanga.com/pothepanda/weblog

The case of PoThePanda… so far

Sometime ago, I was introduced to Gary Tan Yeong Hong a blogger who goes by the moniker PoThePanda.

On Wednesday 1st April 2009, Gary called me from court regarding some charges he was facing and asking for my possible attendance on 8th April 2009, Wednesday. As I could not make it on Wednesday bearing in mind a Court of Appeal hearing on that day, I requested for another date. This was then fixed as 6th April 2009 today.

This morning i appeared in Court No. 3 before District Judge Ng Peng Hong to represent Gary Tan Yeong Hong. The AGC was on Justice Online.

The AGC did not have its papers / file ready on Gary Tan’s case. The case was therefore adjourned till 915am tomorrow morning.

Updates will be given here on this blog as well as Gary Tan’s blog as and when they come along.

Courage, gall, guts and balls – In celebration of all things daringly Singaporean

I was held up in Court over the past 2 weeks for the 2nd tranche of the Tak Boleh Tahan Protest Trial.  I needed a full week to recover only partially from that.

On one occasion during one of the stand downs, I ended up with Rachel and Seelan.  We ended up talking about the things which move us. We spoke of things that Singaporeans ought to do and see done. We questioned whether there was enough dare and courage in Singaporeans generally and whether there was dare and courage in the administration of Singapore.

In the discussion, I came to realise that i am very much of a rebel at heart and i admire the guts and courage displayed under varying circumstances of steps taken by certain people. My take on the following events are some of the things which reveal so:

I admire the Singaporean wife who risked breaking the law to reach for her hubby who was arrested on suspected drink driving. She was eventually charged for obstructing the police in their work if i do not recall incorrectly. Imagine such defiance towards the Singapore Police Force. And rightly so. Where do you see such devotion from a wife to a husband these days?

I sympathise with the Singaporean teacher who made the mistake of having a relationship with her student. In this day and age where the young mature early, they are far from being the innocent and gullible like in the past who needed protection. These days the young can be more corrupted than the old. Recall the case of the underaged girl who had sex with many men. The men all got traced and charged => but does the fact that the men got charged prove that the men are heinous sex fiends and the girl was an angel?

To be fair to the teacher, when she tried to end the relationship, the student had turned around to attempt to blackmail her. Now that is not something an innocent person would do. The teacher plucked up the courage and admitted to an embarrassing wrong – it takes courage for someone to do that. Not everyone has that kind of courage.

I respect the tactics and balls of drug kingpin and Singaporean Roland Tan in his legendary removal of a rival gang to take their place in the drug trade in Amsterdam. I understand from the papers that he was shot by a Vietnamese bodyguard and is currently recuperating at a hospital.The report on his shooting had traced his gangs humble beginnings of being a new gang in the block desperate and low on cash. They had, eyeing the lucrative drug business of the rival triad, bought pistols and took out the entire gang in a single strike and the rest is history. Word has it that this gang now operates in Holland, Bangkok and other places recruiting members which include disenchanted members of singapore society. I have to respect them for firstly their balls and guts, their determination and drive and lastly, for their soft spot for Singapore. How many Singaporeans still endear themselves to things Singaporean and fellow Singaporeans after they have left the country?

GIC and Temasek lost many many billions in their ill timed investment in the banks. When the purchases were made, many questioned the lucidity of thought in those who were in charge. Many people who were far less qualified or learned could see that the investment into the American Banks when the subprime meltdown was unravelling was a very wrong move. When shares fell to low levels after that and repeated writedowns in losses by the subject banks, MM Lee Kuan Yew had the gall to call the investment something for the long term which would show its returns in 20 to 30 years. Now that prices for the Citibank shares have fallen to new lows of hovering just between USD1 to USD2, the amount that we had paid for 11% shareholding for the bank, if invested only now would have given us the entire bank.

This morning I had tried with Choon Hiong and Seelan and Martyn to intercept a revolting ceremony at the Orchid Garden, Singapore Botanical Gardens where the Singapore Government would name an orchid after a General of the Burmese Military Junta. The ceremony had been scheduled for 8am but the event had been wrapped up before that and the General was seemingly whisked out of the Botanic Gardens before 0805hrs. When we arrived, there was a number of National Parks Board staff and non-uniformed police officers still present, we were told by the NPB staff that the event had ended and the guests had left.

We had planned to present a bouquet of orchids to the General for him to pass it to Miss Aung Sann Su Kyi for as she is the democratically elected leader of Burma, she should be the person having an orchid named after her and not a General who has his hands tainted with the blood of his fellow countrymen. He was certainly undeserving.

Plans thwarted, we headed to the Burmese Embassy attempting to pass it to the staff for the transmission back to Burma for Miss Aung San. The Embassy staff refused to turn up at the gate to accept the bouquet. We ended up reading out the message and the card and we left the card and the bouquet at the gate and left. Now was there anything daring about what we did? No. What we had done was a peaceful expression of our disgust and disdain at the love relationship between the Singapore Government and the Burmese Junta and the revolting act of our authorities here.

The naming of an orchid after a foreign guest, traditionally bestowed upon deserving celebrities and visiting Heads of State, was this morning degraded and denigrated to being offered to a murderer who is 4th in the chain of command in the Burmese Junta. The event was conducted in a hush hush manner but i do not believe that such things can be kept away from public eye and ears for long.

Defiance towards the police and dare in the game of gangland battles count for nothing against the backdrop of one who is able to admit the mistakes of committing an embarrassing wrong.

That cannot compare with the cheek to call a failed share investment involving billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money as investment as one that is meant to break even over 20 to 30 years.

But even that pales in comparison to what the Singapore Government did, to laud and worship a murderer, and in doing so, denigrate all past illustrious recipients of similar honour to the low level of despotic military rulers who doggedly cling on to power and would not hesitate to shoot their defenceless countrymen.

To me, that kind of courage in cavorting with the Burmese Military Junta and being shamelessly brazen about it, is the most daring act of all.

Well done, the Government of Singapore.

Rumblings of an Election, the apparent clash of interests, opposition revealing cards too soon

I read on Saturday yesterday’s Weekend Today that Singapore People’s Party SPP’s Chiam See Tong has indicated his intention to fight for a GRC in this coming election and one of GRCs he might contest is Bishan Toa Payoh GRC. Chiam did name a few other GRCs to be fair. SPP enjoys proximity and the spillover effect from its seat held in Bishan Toa Payoh. Bishan-Toa Payoh sits just on the fringe of Potong Pasir. In fact if Potong Pasir were to be absorbed into a GRC, it would most likely be Bishan-Toa Payoh. It seems like a natural choice.

This was reason enough for WP to respond. I was directed to a blogpost by Workers’ Party WP’s Yaw Shin Leong on the WP’s CAC (Central Area Committee) which was formed to cover Ang Mo Kio GRC, Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC and Yio Chu Kang SMC. Therein i detect clearly interest by WP’s CAC in Bishan Toa Payoh. To be fair, WP’s CAC was set up shortly after GE2006 which did express interest in Bishan Toa Payoh amongst others.

But that’s not all.

Being non-partisan has allowed my to obtain information on interests expressed by other people and parties in certain hotspots. And this information now has proven to be useful.

Bishan Toa Payoh GRC according to my knowledge is also visited by the NSP National Solidarity Party in its activities.

The Singapore Democratic Party led by Dr. Chee Soon Juan has also made visits to Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC – this part i am fully aware.

This interest apparently is also expressed by NSP’s Goh Meng Seng. Which at one stage i expected to eventually contest with Tan Kin Lian in the same GRC. Could this put Tan Kin Lian onto the path towards Bishan Toa Payoh as well?

What are the merits in each of the groups claims or impending claims? Should the parties meet to lay the ground rules for deciding which party makes the bid for the hotspot?

And that’s not the end.

I have friends in the Reform Party as well. I would shudder at the thought that there would be a Reform Party team aiming to contest in Bishan Toa Payoh as well as I have reasons to believe that a number of them are resident in the area.

The worst thing that can happen is a wildcard to come into the picture. Independent candidates which i am told are contemplating entering the electoral fray might make a bid for Bishan Toa-Payoh as well if they feel that their candidates are up to the mark. This would make the clash of contests a forgone conclusion with the PAP winning in the end.

I would predict and hope that all parties contest the areas which they have contested in the last election. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, it is only natural and wise for a party to re-contest an area which it has built awareness, familiar and recognition in a previous contest.

I do not know how active has been WP’s East Area Committee after I left but I do wish that my beloved East Coast gets its second chance at having an opposition slate as its MPs.

How would the opposition decide the horsetrade that would traditionally go on in the prelude to nomination day? First to lay claim? Most activities done? Strength of the candidates?

The horsetrade avoids wastage of opposition resources. The only impediment to a successful horsetrade would be the pride and ego of each party. But that is not the end. If the area is such a hotspot, be prepared for a wildcard to come into the picture, independents who might make a bid for the same GRC.

TODAY wants to know SDP’s response to Chiam’s criticisms – Thursday, 26 February 2009

In the usual run up to an electoral battle with SDP, the PAP would revert to its oft-repeated game plan. Its minions would again try to drive a wedge within different groups in the opposition. This latest attempt comes from Loh Chee Kong from Today. Dr. Chee issued the following response.

TODAY wants to know SDP’s response to Chiam’s criticisms
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Singapore Democrats

The Today newspaper wrote to Dr Chee Soon Juan asking for his response to Mr Chiam See Tong’s criticisms about the SDP. Its Senior Reporter, Mr Loh Chee Kong, said that he had interviewed Mr Chiam on Wednesday in which Mr Chiam said that the Singapore Democrats had engaged in “conspiratorial and destructive politics.”

Mr Loh wanted Dr Chee’s “take on what had happened within the SDP then” and what is Dr Chee’s present relationship with Mr Chiam. He added that Mr Chiam was sore that he was “forced out” of the party he founded. Mr Loh said that the story is slated to be published in this Saturday’s edition of the newspaper. Read Dr Chee’s reply to Mr Loh:

As apparent during the interview, Mr Chiam was still upset over the way he felt he was “forced out”– in his words — of the party he had founded. He was visibly sore that there were people in the party then who failed to understand his vision of a “two-party system” and were more interested in engaging in what he called “conspiratorial and destructive politics”. Mr Chiam added that he is not on speaking terms with you because of what had happened.
- Loh Chee Kong
Senior Reporter, TODAY

Dear Mr Loh,

First, let me say that I have no desire to let myself and my party be dragged by you into a mud-slinging match with another opposition party.

Readers will ask themselves: Why this and why now? The break up with Mr Chiam See Tong in the SDP happened nearly two decades ago. This was extensively covered and utilised by the PAP and its media to criticise the Singapore Democrats.

Yet, your newspaper decides to resurrect the issue today. One need not be a genius to see what motivates this present exercise. You are obviously trying to remind Singaporeans of the episode in the hope that you can turn opinion against the SDP again.

Why now? This is not hard to figure out given two recent developments: One, is that the general elections are expected to be called in the not-too-distant future and the PAP needs to run down the Singapore Democrats.

Two, the SDP has been calling for the opposition to work closer together. The PAP needs to halt this process as a united opposition is not in its interest. The PAP has always depended on the divide-and-conquer tactic to trump the opposition.

Mr Chiam’s views of the SDP are not news. If you are truly interested in political fallouts, a story about the “stepping down” of Ms Ho Ching as Temasek’s chief and what was really happening behind the scenes would thrill your readers no end, and assuredly send your newspaper’s sales to record highs.

Despite such real information that the newspaper should be telling your readers, you choose to write on something that happened in 1993 and which has already been milked dry by your colleagues.

Now that the Singapore Democrats are moving ahead and gaining momentum in attracting support especially on the Internet, the media knows that it needs to do something, however blatant and despicable, to halt our progress.

Thanks but no thanks, we prefer to concentrate our attention on the PAP.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party