PLU will do better as an Independent NGOI refer to the letter from Siah Eng Kiat published in Weekend Today, March 12, 2005: A society to help deal with gay issues, National will needed to put a structure in place.
I agree that the press coverage of gay issues in Singapore has grown to such an extent that they can no longer be swept under the carpet.
However, his recommendations on the objectives and set up of the proposed PLU organization is questionable.
In his letter, Mr Siah recommended that all members must go through compulsory HIV testing. This is by itself discriminatory. What is the rationale for such a criteria? Is he suggesting that members of the aforementioned PLU should be HIV negative? Even if someone is HIV positive, why should he or she be denied the rights to work with a sexual minority rights NGO?
He suggested having a government official or respected, heterosexual member of the community on its committee. Again, what is the rationale behind the criteria? Why should a sexual minority rights group be subjected to external or governmental intervention? Instead, the core committee should be elected and formed by activists knowledgeable about gay issues, who can better inform and mobilize the community and society.
Mr Siah’s recommendation discriminates GLBT activists and the GLBT community in Singapore. It appears he perceives them as “questionable threats or disruptive agents of societal change”.
In the second last paragraph, he mentioned that PLU is hiding behind an excuse of not being registered when the reverse is true. Despite submitting their applications twice and submitting an appeal, it is the Ministry of Home Affairs that has rejected the applications, without giving a proper or justified explanation.
He mentioned that allowing PLU to register is merely following the footsteps of other organizations pertaining to following women, religion, issues etc. However, as far as I know, none of these organizations enforce HIV testing or includes a government official or respected heterosexual member in their committee.
If the Singapore government is sincere in its efforts to create a liberal and inclusive society, it should not deny PLU official registration nor treat it with suspicion. PLU, like other NGOs in Singapore, has to be a non-governmental intervention organization.
A society to help deal with gay issues
National will needed to put a structure in place
Weekend • March 12, 2005
FOR some time now there has been an increase in press coverage on issues pertaining to the gay community in Singapore.
In recent months, these have evolved to become issues of public concern — mainly, health and morality.
With the increasing number of gay people who have come out of the closet, more issues will surface. These can no longer be swept under the carpet or dismissed just because Singapore is largely a conservative country.
There is a need to set up or allow the formation of a government body or civil organisation to look into issues pertaining to the gay community that are now affecting the wider Singapore society.
The application for registration as a society by People Like Us (PLU) was rejected twice.
Perhaps, the gay community may want to reconsider the objectives for the formation of such a society.
Instead of allowing itself to be viewed with suspicion by the authority, PLU, or any society related to the gay community, may want to consider making its members go for regular HIV testing as part of its membership requirement — as the equivalent, in the non-gay community, of the Health Ministry studying proposals to make testing of pregnant mothers compulsory.
In addition to tackling the rising number of new Aids cases in the gay community, the PLU or other organisation may also be tasked to look into other issues pertaining to homosexuality that impact on our society.
Instead of having just a few out-spoken gay individuals voice their personal views, an organisation would have more resources to research and debate these issues.
PLU (or other such organisation) could include a government official or respected, heterosexual member of the community on its committee.
With such a set-up, such an organisation would no longer hide behind the excuse of not being registered, but can be held accountable to society — just like other organisations pertaining to women, religion, etc that have a responsibility to the well-being of their members and the wider society.
The debates pertaining to gay issues will not subside. We need to have the national will to put in place a structure to deal with issues pertaining to the gay community, before these issues — whether health, morality or socio-political — become national issues affecting everyone.
Letter from siah eng kiat
The Trial that Singaporeans will not witness
What Singaporeans will not get to witness is the trial that went submerged under the radar of some of the newsgroups concerning political affairs in Singapore. After Dr Chee’s case was thrown out by the court, he submitted a letter to The Optical containing questions which he had intended to counter MM Lee. I wasn’t aware of them until Singabloodypore reproduced the questions from the mailing group.
Dr Chee’s questions reveal more than just the dispute between him and MM Lee; but in fact, question some of the very nagging issues that Singaporeans are curious about.
His questions throw open debate on double standards that MM Lee practices in defaming his opponents (Tang Liang Hong defamation suit), human rights issues (torture methods used in ISA), secretive government efforts in public funds management including using them to support despots (government’s relationship with Burma military government), and overseas ventures which failed miserably (Suzhou Industrial Project) among others.
While it is unlikely that The Straits Times will publish Dr Chee’s letter and questions, it will serve as a good guide for Singaporeans to read them and understand their implications on what the answers are.
This is the trial that Singaporeans will not get to witness.
===
Chee's wants MM Lee to answer interrogatories - Part I
Dr Chee Soon Juan has sued Mr Lee Kuan Yew for calling him a fraud, a liar and a cheat, a dishonest person, a flawed character and a political gangster.
Dr Chee’s suit was dismissed yesterday by the courts because the SDP secretary-general refused to answer the interrogatories Lee Kuan Yew had served on him.
Interrogatories are questions one party can ask of the other in order to confirm or clarify facts and opinions. Mr Lee applied to the courts to require Dr Chee to answer a total of 96 interrogatories. The courts have agreed with Mr Lee that all his questions are relevant and ordered Dr Chee to reply to all of them, failing which his case against the MM will be dismissed.
In return Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee to answer his questions. In addition, Dr Chee has written to Mr Lee (see letter below) to answer the questions regardless of whether the courts allowed them or not. This is because Dr Chee’s questions relate directly to Mr Lee's own conduct on which the SDP secretary-general wanted to rely on in order to prove his case. Dr Chee has stipulated that he will answer Mr Lee's interrogatories if and only if the MM agrees to answer his. Mr Lee refused. Part I of Dr Chee's interrogatories to the MM are appended following the letter below.
21 February 2005
Mr Lee Kuan Yew
Minister Mentor
Annexe, Istana
Singapore
Dear Sir,
As you know the case regarding my suit against you has come to the stage of interrogatories. You have asked a total of 96 questions in your interrogatories to me, and you have asked the courts to dismiss my suit should I fail to answer them by 28 February 2005.
I too have taken an application for a hearing to require you to answer my interrogatories. I note that you have instructed your counsel to oppose my application. In other words, you do not want to answer my interrogatories to you. You are aware that I have stated that while I have no problems in answering your questions, I will do it under one and only one condition: That you do the same for my interrogatories to you. If you fail to do so, I give you notice that I will not respond to your interrogatories.
This will obviously result in my action against you being dismissed. I am willing to sacrifice this for one simple reason: As much as you would like to hold me responsible for my actions hence your interrogatories to me, you must be held accountable for yours.
As you can see, the questions are straightforward with most of them requiring simple 'yes' or 'no' answers. They are crucial to my proving the case against you. I hope that you will not hide behind the legal system and avoid answering my questions. If you do, it will be yet another indication that you continue to avoid facing me in court. In the interest of getting to the bottom of the entire matter, I am prepared to answer all of your interrogatories. I only hope that you will not be diffident in answering mine.
As my application to serve the interrogatories on you will be heard on 25 February 2005, please let me have your response by 23 February 2005. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chee Soon Juan
From Singabloodypore:
==
Interrogatories from Dr Chee Soon Juan to Mr Lee Kuan
The article below is so important that I just have to post it in full. It's the questions that Dr Chee is asking Lee Kuan Yew. You got to read this, not that I can imagine Lee Kuan Yew actually replying.
==
cont’d from The Optical:
In his defence, Mr Lee cited Dr Chee’s surreptitious recording of his conversation with Dr S Vasoo, former PAP MP and the one who initiated Dr Chee’s sacking, as evidence to support his accusation of Dr Chee. Mr Lee, in his interrogatory, asked Dr Chee the following questions:
1. With respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, did the Defendant on 7 December 1992 bring a tape recorder to see Dr S. Vasoo, the Head of the Department of Social Work and Psychology?
2. If the answer to the 1st interrogatory is 'yes', did the Defendant tape the conversation between him and Dr Vasoo?
3. When Dr Vasoo asked the Defendant if their conversation was being tape recorded by the Defendant, did the Defendant deny that he was tape-recording their conversation?
4. Did the Defendant also tape record an earlier conversation between the Defendant, Dr Vasoo and a third party without first informing Dr Vasoo and the third party that he was tape recording their conversation?
In 1986, it was recorded that Mr Lee had used a tape recording of a Law Society meeting for a Parliamentary Select Committee hearing convened to debate the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act. If he considers his own action of taping the conversations of others as good and right then he cannot possibly accuse Dr Chee of being “a fraud, a liar and a cheat” for doing what exactly what Mr Lee himself did. For this reason, Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee the following:
1. In the 1986 there was an extraordinary general meeting of the Law Society to discuss the Legal Profession (Amendment) bill. Did the Plaintiff, through the ISD or any other means, tape them proceedings of the meeting?
2. If the answer to the above interrogatory is ‘yes’, was it done with the knowledge and consent of the participants of that meeting?
3. Did the Plaintiff cite some of the words that were spoken at the Law Society meeting mentioned inminterrogatory 1 during the Select Committee hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill in 1986?
4. When asked how the Plaintiff knew about what was said at the Law Society meeting mentioned in interrogatory 1, did the Plaintiff say the words (or words to that effect): “In the age of the tape recorder, you want to know how I am able to get a transcript of what you said?”
Misuse of funds
Mr Lee also says that Dr Chee had misused his NUS research funds, proving that Dr Chee was a fraud, a liar and a cheat. In order to prove his case, Mr Lee wanted Dr Chee to answer questions regarding Dr Chee’s use of research funds to send his wife’s doctoral thesis to the US, and his claims for taxi fares.
In the same principle as the situation regarding the surreptitious tape-recording, Dr Chee argues that he cannot be any of those things that Mr Lee has accused him of if Mr Lee has committed similar acts but considers them legitimate and right. For example Mr Lee asks his press secretary (who is a civil servant and whose salary is paid for by the state) to issue statements on his behalf in the defamation lawsuits which he has taken out in his personal capacity. Such being the case can he then accuse Dr Chee of being a fraud, a liar and a cheat for using NUS funds for personal benefit (an accusation, by the way, that Dr Chee flatly denies)? The following are some of the questions that Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee to answer vis-à-vis the matter of misusing funds:
1. Did the Plaintiff direct his press secretary Yeong Yoon Ying to issue a press statement that carried the Plaintiffs remarks that the Defendant was misleading the public in an article published in the Straits Times on 16 September 2004?
2. Did the Plaintiff direct his staff to write and issue press statements for him in matters relating to the defamation lawsuits that the Plaintiff brought against J. B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong?
3. Did the Plaintiff use his office hours to do work on the lawsuits such as consulting his lawyers and writing his affidavits?
4. When the Plaintiff attended court on 6 September 2004 did he apply for leave for the time he was in court?
5. When he traveled to court on 6 September 2004, did he travel in the state car that was assigned to him?
6. During the days he attended court with regards to other defamation lawsuits that he had taken, did the Plaintiff apply for leave? Did he travel to court in the state car that was assigned to him?
7. When the Plaintiff chartered a Singapore Airlines flight from London to Singapore to ferry his wife who had suffered a stroke, did the Plaintiff and/or his wife pay for the expenses of the flight?
8. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 7, for which part of the flight’s expenses did the Plaintiff and/or his wife pay?
9. If the answer is ‘no’ to interrogatory 7, who paid for the flight’s expenses?
Indonesia loan
Mr Lee cited the Indonesia-loan incident to justify his comments. Mr Lee’s and Mr Goh Chok Tong’s lawsuits were awarded to the two former prime minister without Dr Chee being given a trial. Now, Dr Chee wants Mr Lee to answer the questions below regarding the matter:
1. Why was the loan to Indonesia not announced to Singaporeans when it was first made to the Suharto government?
2. Apart from the US$5 billion that Singapore pledged to loan to Indonesia for balance of payments support, did Singapore make a pledge of an initial US$5 billion (which could be increased as necessary) to buy the rupiah?
3. Is the Plaintiff aware that in 1997 Bank Indonesia (BI) was reported to be “negotiating with Singapore on the use of the balance of US$5 billion currently earmarked for rupiah market intervention” in an article in the Business Times entitled ‘Indo stocks edge up as investors await loan news’ published mon 27 November 1997.
4. Is the Plaintiff aware that BI said it was talking to Singapore authorities on whether the funds earmarked for buying the rupiah could be used for the “development of small scale businesses, cooperatives, labour-intensive industries and exports”?
5. Did the Singapore Government reply to the enquiries raised by BI mentioned in interrogatory 4?
6. Did the Singapore Government inform the public about the enquiries made by BI in interrogatory 4 and its response, if any?
Overseas trips
Mr Lee has argued that Dr Chee’s numerous trips overseas means that Dr Chee is being manipulated by foreigners and therefore a flawed character. He has asked Dr Chee questions like “How much did each of these trips cost?” and “Who paid for each of these trips?” to support his contention.
In return Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee the questions below to in order to show that just because one accepts invitations and awards from overseas (as Mr Lee has done), it doesn’t mean that one is manipulated by foreigners:
1. Did the Plaintiff go to the US to receive the ‘Architect of the New Century’ award from the Nixon Centre in 1996?
2. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 1:
1. How much did the trip cost?
2. Who paid for the trip?
3. Apart from the travel expenses, who paid for the daily expenses for the Plaintiff?
3. Over and above this award, did the Plaintiff make any other trips to receive any other awards or honorary degrees from institutions in other countries?
4. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 1:
1. How much did each of these trips cost?
2. Who paid for the trips?
3. Apart from the travel expenses, who paid for the daily expenses for the Plaintiff during these trips?
5. Is the Plaintiff involved with the governing bodies of Chrysler-Daimler, JP Morgan and Total?
6. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, what are these governing bodies and what responsibilities/duties are these bodies entrusted with?
7. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, what position does the Plaintiff hold in these governing bodies?
8. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, does he attend any of the meetings of the governing bodies of these corporations?
9. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 8, where are these meetings held, how often does he attend them, and who pays for the travel and other expenses?
10. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 5, did or does the Plaintiff receive any salary, remuneration, income, gifts, reimbursements, form of compensation, financial or otherwise, from these companies?
Acquisition of Optus
Mr Lee also accuses Dr Chee of being a flawed character just because Dr Chee advised against the acquisition of Optus, the Australian telecommunications company by Singtel, which is run by his son, Hsien Yang. Mr Lee asked Dr Chee “What ‘political interests’ did the Defendant [Dr Chee] believe Singapore Telecoms had in the acquisition of Optus amd what is the basis of that belief?” To answer Mr Lee’s questions, Dr Chee needed information from the Minister Mentor:
1. Does SingTel use its infrastructure and services for surveillance on opposition parties and/or its members?
2. Does SingTel use its infrastructure and services for surveillance on Singaporeans whom the PAP considers as its critics or dissidents?
Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the US
Along similar lines, Mr Lee has said that Dr Chee’s opposition to the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is another reason why he says that Dr Chee is a flawed character. Again, in order for Dr Chee to prove that Mr Lee is not justified in his comments the SDP secretary-general wants Mr Lee to answer these questions:
1. Is Batam included in the USSFTA?
2. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 36, why is Batam (which is not part of Singapore or the US) included under the USSFTA? [Through a program called the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI) electronics components from these islands will count as Singaporean content under the USSFTA, even though the Indonesian island is not subject to the labor and environmental provisions of the agreement. The real purpose of the initiative seems to be facilitating cheap offshore production using Indonesian low-wage sweatshops for export into the US. How does this benefit Singaporean workers?]
3. Did the Plaintiff or the Singapore Government seek the assistance of US corporations to lobby the US Congress to pass the USSFTA?
4. Did the Singapore Government ensure that Singaporean workers’ rights and interests are protected under the USSFTA?
5. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 4, wherein the USSSFTA is this stated and how will the protection of Singaporean workers be enforced?
Did the Singapore government organise any public forums or hearings to solicit the feedback of Singaporeans on the USSFTA when it was being negotiated?
Part II of Chee Soon Juan's Letter & Questions to Lee
Running down Singapore
Mr Lee then accuses Dr Chee of running down Singapore because of comments the latter made about the political system in Singapore in speeches and talks he gave while overseas. Criticizing the undemocratic system that has been put in place to keep the PAP in power, has nothing to do with criticizing Singapore. In fact, Dr Chee argues that it is the PAP that has been working against the interests of Singaporeans. To demonstrate this, Dr Chee wants Mr Lee to answer the questions below:
[On equating Singapore with the PAP]
1. Does the Plaintiff agree that the PAP is a political party that is not equal to Singapore and that criticizing the government formed by the PAP is not equivalent to criticizing Singapore?
2. [On Singapore’s dealings with Burma]
3. Did the Singapore Government, either directly or through one of the GLCs, ship, sell and/or re-export arms and ammunition to the Burmese government?
4. Did the Chartered Industries of Singapore ship, sell or re-export any of its products to the Burmese government?
5. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 4, what are these products?
6. The US State Department has said that over half of Singapore’s investments in Burma "have been tied to the family of narco-trafficker Lo Hsing Han." Does the Plaintiff dispute this statement?
7. If the answer is ‘no’ to interrogatory 6, are Singapore’s investments still tied in with Lo Hsing Han’s family or any other drug trafficker in Burma?
8. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 6, has the Singapore Government written to the US to protest this statement?
9. Was any investment money from the Singapore Government and/or GLCs invested (through the Myanmar Fund) with Asia World, a company set up by Lo Hsing Han?
10. Was the Plaintiff aware that the son of Lo Hsing Han, Steven Law, had been freely moving in and out of Singapore despite being strongly suspected of being involved in drug production and trafficking?
11. Was the Plaintiff aware that the Singapore ambassador to Burma had attended the wedding of Steven Law?
12. [On the secrecy and non-accountability of the GIC]
13. As Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), will the Plaintiff direct that the GIC’s accounts (including all its investments and performance of its investments) be open for public scrutiny?
14. Will the Plaintiff reveal how directors of the GIC are appointed and what criteria are used for the appointment of directors?
15. Who develops the GIC’s investment policies and strategies, and how are investment decisions made?
16. With reference to the amendment to the Constitution in 2004 to allow the transfer of reserves to statutory boards and GLCs, does the Plaintiff agree that the change will make the management of the reserves even more opaque?
17. Will the Plaintiff ensure that every transfer of reserves to statutory boards and GLCs be made public in terms of how much is transferred and to which organization?
18. Will the Plaintiff reveal who will make the decision to make the decisions to allow the transfer of the reserves?
19. [On the Suzhou Industrial Park project]
20. Will the Plaintiff urge the Singapore Government to reveal the accounts for the failed Suzhou Industrial Park project to allow Singaporeans to determine the losses that were incurred?
21. [On the non-publication of trade statistics with Indonesia]
22. Did the Singapore Government, during which the Plaintiff was the prime minister, agree with the Indonesian government in 1974 (then under Suharto) to not publish statistics regarding the two countries?
23. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 22, why was such an agreement made?
24. [On the cost of building HDB flats]
25. Will the Singapore government direct that the accounts and books of the Housing Development Board (HDB) be open for public study so that a breakdown of the actual costs that go into the building of an HDB flat can be compared to the price at which they are sold?
26. Will the Plaintiff reveal the panel of law firms the HDB has been engaging in its conveyancing section since the HDB’s inception?
27. Will the Plaintiff reveal the number of HDB conveyancing cases handled by each of the law firms named in the answer to interrogatory 26?
28. [On the Chief Justice’s self-appraisal]
29. Did the Plaintiff know before he appointed Mr Yong Pung How as Chief Justice that Mr Yong had written the following statement: "Far from being distinguished in the law, I can only describe myself now as a working member of the business community, who had merely the good fortune to have a background in legal training, and some practical experience in this honourable profession before descending into the depths of the business world…My acquaintance with the law ceased as long ago as 1970, and before then had been confined almost entirely to Malaysia…I had never actually practised in Singapore…My final departure then from the profession in 1970 must be sufficient to allow judicial notice to be taken that I had neither the ability nor the inclination to persevere in the law."?
30. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 29, why did the Plaintiff appoint Mr Yong as the Chief Justice when Mr Yong himself categorically said that he was neither able nor willing to practice law, much less function as the Chief Justice.
31. [On the torture of ISA detainees]
32. Does the Plaintiff agree that detainees under the ISA in Singapore have been physically and mentally tortured?
33. If the answer is ‘no’ to interrogatory 32, will the Plaintiff call for a public inquiry to determine the veracity of the Government’s claims that ISA prisoners were/are not subject to torture?
34. [On lawsuit against Mr Tang Liang Hong]
35. How did the Plaintiff obtain the police report that Tang Liang Hong had made about the PAP leaders during the general elections in 1996/1997?
36. Did the Plaintiff call for a press conference to disseminate Tang’s police report to reporters?
37. Did the Plaintiff use the information in the confidential police report that Tang lodged to sue the complainant, Tang Liang Hong?
38. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 37, did the Plaintiff sue Tang Liang Hong in his personal capacity?
39. [On the intimidation of journalists]
40. Did the Plaintiff meet with Mr Ernest Wong, CEO of Media Corp, Mr Mano Sabnani, Editor of Today, Mr Rahul Pathak, Deputy Editor of Today, and/or Val Chua, journalist with Today in or around 5 November 2003 following the newspaper’s publication of the article "SM Lee and the eye opening trauma in London"?
41. If the answer is ‘yes’ to interrogatory 40, why did the Plaintiff call for the meeting and what did the Plaintiff tell those present?
42. [On the incomes and assets of PAP ministers]
43. Does the Plaintiff think that it is right for PAP Ministers not to declare their incomes and assets to the public?
