"HOW Y O U CAN PROVE THE SINGAPORE GOVT RIGS ELECTIONS"

HOW Y O U CAN PROVE THE SINGAPORE GOVT RIGS
ELECTIONS :

Step 1 :

Tell the world that I, Robert HO, have already
published numerous statements of how Lee Kuan Yew,
then Prime Minister of Singapore, rigged the 1997
Cheng San GRC election, in the newsgroup
soc.culture.singapore. Here are about 15 pages of my
typical postings in soc.culture.singapore on this
subject [note that soc.culture.singapore is heavily
monitored by the PAP govt and police and I have been
charged and investigated TWICE for my postings in
soc.culture.singapore BUT NEVER FOR THESE LKY ELECTION
RIGGING POSTINGS AND STATEMENTS due to LKY fear of
public exposure should the matter be brought to police
or court] :

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.singapore/search?hl=en&group=soc.culture.singapore&q=rh%3A+cheng+san+1997&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group

Step 2 :

Tell the world how I have emailed to various
Government Ministries and Bodies such as the Supreme
Court, Ministry of Law, etc, such statements of LKY
rigging of Cheng San GRC 1997 election [about 2
pages]. [These emails of LKY election rigging have
mostly been acknowledged in receipt, which I have also
posted]. [Again, no police action on these emails.
Just a deafening silence in the face of my very, very
serious accusations made publicly] :

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.singapore/search?hl=en&group=soc.culture.singapore&q=rh%3A+cheng+san+1997+emailed+to&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group

Step 3 :

Tell the world that I have obtained confirmation of my
Informant's eyewitness testimony. That not only have
my wife and I [see Attached testimony] been told in
confirmation of what Mr David DUCLOS and his lawyer
friend saw that night, but also Secretary-General of
the Singapore Democratic Party, Dr Chee Soon Juan, has
spoken to Mr DUCLOS and obtained Mr DUCLOS'
confirmation about his eyewitness testimony to my wife
and I [Dr Chee's email address is in my mass email
circular above or c/o Singapore Democratic Party
website at :

Singapore Democratic Party
1357A Serangoon Road
Singapore 328240
Tel/Fax: (65) 6398-1675
Email: speakup@singaporedemocrat.org

Step 4 :

My eyewitness Informant is

Mr David DUCLOS
Block 670 Choa Chu Kang Crescent
#04-517
Singapore 680670
Republic of Singapore
Telephone : [65] 67261028
Email : ardeedee1@hotmail.com

[I DO NOT HAVE THE NAME OR CONTACTS OF HIS LAWYER
FRIEND, WHO HAS HIS OWN LAW FIRM IN SINGAPORE].

To prove for yourself and the world, please contact Mr
DUCLOS, preferably first by email, then telephone,
then in person if you can, and ask him whether he
stands by his email testinony to me [see Attached] and
also his testimony in person face-to-face to my wife
and I, as well over the phone to Dr Chee Soon Juan.

Once Mr DUCLOS has confirmed to you what he told me in
email and then in person, YOU become another confirmed
witness to Mr DUCLOS' testimony and YOU become another
witness, just one removed, from his eyewitness
testimony.

YOU THEN BECOME ANOTHER CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO CAN THEN
REPORT TO THE WORLD THE TRUTH ABOUT LKY's ELECTION
RIGGING IN THE CHENG SAN GRC 1997 ELECTION. YOU ARE IN
THE SAME EXACT POSITION AS AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST
WHO CAN REPORT TO THE WORLD, AFTER OBTAINING
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUTH FROM MR DAVID DUCLOS.

..............................

.....

WHY LKY DESERVES TO BE REVILED AS AN ELECTION RIGGER :

FIRST, DISPEL ANY NOTION THAT LEE KUAN YEW AND
HIS SON AND CRONIES ARE 'BENEVOLENT DESPOTS' WHO
HAVE/ARE DOING SINGAPOREANS A LOT OF GOOD. THAT THOUGH
HE MAY BE 'AUTOCRATIC' EVEN A "TINPOT DICTATOR"
[WILLIAM SAFIRE EPITHET], HE HAS BROUGHT HIS TINY
ISLAND FROM "THIRD WORLD TO FIRST" [AS HE BOASTED IN
HIS LYING MEMOIR].

THE TRUTH IS, LEE KUAN YEW WORKS ONLY FOR HIMSELF, HIS
FAMILY AND THEIR CRONIES TO ACHIEVE SUPREME POWER AND
AMASSING ABOUT A BILLION IN HARD CASH. IN ORDER TO DO
SO, HE JAILED HUNDREDS WITHOUT EVEN THE SEMBLANCE OF A
TRIAL, VICTIMS WHOSE ONLY CRIME WAS TO OPPOSE HIM.
PLUS HE CORRUPTED EVERY INSTITUTION IN SINGAPORE, FROM
THE JUDICIARY TO THE POLICE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE. HE
ALSO RIGS ELECTIONS WHEN HE CANNOT WIN THEM EVEN
UNFAIRLY.

AS FOR HIS 'THIRD WORLD TO FIRST' CLAIM, WELL, COMPARE
SINGAPORE WITH HONGKONG. HONGKONG HAS PROGRESSED EVEN
FASTER AND FARTHER WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A LKY OR
ABOLITION OF HUMAN AND LEGAL RIGHTS. OR RIGGING
ELECTIONS. LKY IS THE MASTER EXAGGERATOR, WHO ALL HIS
LIFE HAS EXAGGERATED HIS ACHIEVEMENTS AND EXAGGERATED
HIS PROBLEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, HE CONSTANTLY INSISTS THAT
HE 'FOUGHT THE COMMUNISTS' AND WAS A VERY BRAVE MAN TO
DO THAT. TRUTH IS, BRITISH SINGAPORE COULD NO MORE GO
COMMUNIST THAN BRITISH HONGKONG. FAR LESS SO, IN FACT,
SINCE HONGKONG ABUTS COMMUNIST CHINA AND IS EASILY
INFILTRATED BY THE CHINESE. LKY WAS NEVER IN ANY
PHYSICAL DANGER. WHEN HE WAS, HE WORKED FOR AND
COLLABORATED WITH THE INVADER JAPANESE SO THAT HE
COULD, IN HIS OWN WORDS, "EAT BETTER AND LIVE BETTER".

TODAY, I URGE YOU TO DESTROY LKY AND HIS LEGACY.

WHETHER YOU ARE IN SINGAPORE OR ABROAD, CONTACT MR
DAVID DUCLOS BY LETTER, EMAIL OR PHONE. HE WAS THE
EYEWITNESS [TOGETHER WITH HIS LAWYER FRIEND], WHO
EYEWITNESSED LKY RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC
ELECTION. [PLEASE READ ATTACHED].

MR DUCLOS WAS A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR AND A SENIOR
OFFICIAL IN THE PORT OF SINGAPORE AUTHORITY [PSA]. HE
IS VERY CREDIBLE AS AN EYEWITNESS AS YOU CAN READ IN
HIS EMAIL TESTIMONY TO ME. HIS LAYWER FRIEND AND
CO-EYEWITNESS IS JUST AS CREDIBLE. MR DUCLOS FIRST
EMAILED ME HIS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF LKY'S RIGGING OF
CHENG SAN 1997 ELECTION. THEN CONFIRMED HIS TESTIMONY
IN PERSON TO MY WIFE AND I. HE HAS SINCE ALSO
CONFIRMED HIS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO DR CHEE SOON
JUAN OF THE SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

MR DAVID DUCLOS
BLOCK 670 CHOA CHU KANG CRESCENT
#04-517
SINGAPORE 680670
TEL: 67261028
EMAIL: ardeedee1@hotmail.com

BELOW, A VERY SHORT LIST OF THE EVILS LKY HAS
COMMITTED:

1. In Feb of 1963, 111 people in Singapore were
arrested under the ISA in a pre-dawn swoop now known
as Operation Coldstore. The arrests were ordered after
a meeting in Malaysia between PAP leaders, the British
and Federation. Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and Ong
Pang Boon were in the meeting.

2. Amongst those arrested were Lim Chin Siong and
James Fu (who later became LKY's Press Secretary). Lim
was the leader of the opposition at the time. Ops
Coldstore destroyed all chances of Singapore having a
two-party democratic system.

3. In 1963, PAP won elections against major rival
Barisan Sosialist. They were able to do this beacuse
most of Barisan's leaders were in jail. Chia Thye Poh
was elected MP of Jurong.

4. Between 1965 to 1966, PAP refused to convene
Parliament for many months, leading Barisan to boycott
Parliament altogether.

5. Chia Thye Poh was arrested on Oct 1966 at the
Barisan office. S'poreans were never to see Chia again
until he was marooned to Sentosa in 1989, making him
the longest jailed [without any charge or court
appearance or sanction] political prisoner in the
world. He was eventually freed in 1998. Till today,
Chia Thye Poh's detention acts as psychological
deterrent against anyone who wishes to sign up for the
opposition. The ISA is still in use.

6. In the 1968 GE, opposition decided to boycott the
elections. This election marked the start of PAP
walkovers. Only 7 seats were contested, mostly by
Independents against the PAP. PAP won all.

7. PAP again won clean sweeps in 72, 76 and 80 until
JBJ won a seat in the Anson by-election. During this
period, the ISA continue to be used against political
opponents. Dr Poh Soo Kai, who was detained in 1963
and released in 1972, was detained again in 1976.

8. When JBJ regained his seat in 1984, Lee Kuan Yew
stepped up his attacks. JBJ served jail time for
allegedly misdeclaring party funds and was eventually
disqualified in 1986 after a libel suit. He was not to
contest again until 1997 where he won a NCMP seat. The
truth is, JBJ and his 4 other election candidates were
cheated out of an outright election victory in the
5-member Cheng San GRC ward. For proof of LKY having
rigged the 1997 Cheng San GRC election, read my
attached document. JBJ was again booted out of
Parliament in 2001 when he declared bankruptcy.

9. In 1987, 22 young professionals were arrested under
the ISA in a "marxist conspiracy." Truth is : many of
the detainees were non-member activists working with
the Workers Party. Some of them were re-arrested in
1988 after they alleged mistreatment by ISD. Vincent
Cheng and Teo Soh Lung served close to two years in
jail. Francis Seow was also detained and upon release,
stood for elections and almost won a seat. He was
subsequently charged with income tax evasion and a
arrest warrant has since been issued against him.

10. In 1997, Tang Liang Hong burst into the political
scene with fire and fury. He stood with JBJ in Cheng
San and lost narrowly, through LKY cheating in the
Cheng San GRC ward ballot counting election fraud. He
was subsequently sued by 13 PAP ministers and declared
a bankrupt. An arrest warrant has also been issued
against him.

11. After 1997, more restrictions were put in place to
castrate the opposition. Gerrymandering, Political
Donations Act, increased election deposits, clampdown
on internet campaigning etc. Every fair and foul means
were committed to make campaigning and winning by the
tiny and fragmented Opposition impossible.

Under such circumstances, even the most popular and
well-loved opposition politician would be crushed by
such a system. One need look no furher than JB
Jeyaretnam. The remaining opposition would be silly to
attempt anything that would upset Lee's hold on power.
At about $13,000 a month salary, Chiam See Tong and
Low Thia Kiang knows which side of their bread is
buttered. Anyone who goes the way of Chee Soon Juan
will be crushed.

Singaporeans need to realise that it is the elections
system that needs reforming, not the opposition. And
this can only be achieve through extra-parliamentary
measures like civil action, public protests and
international pressure. Contacting my eyewitnesses and
encouraging them to confirm the truth is a good start.

......................

Robert HO
28 Bukit Batok Street 52
#20-03 Guilin View
Singapore 659248
Tel: (65) 68989553

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

ATTACHMENT PASTED HERE :

TESTIMONY OF LEE KUAN YEW's ELECTION FRAUD IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF 1997 IN THE CHENG SAN GROUP
REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCY ELECTION, BY Robert Ho,
NRIC No. S0197974D.

1. My name is Robert Ho Chong. I am a Singapore
citizen by birth. I am 54 years old as of writing this
on 5 Jan 05 in the early hours of 0028. I have been
told, in email and in person, by a direct eyewitness,
that he, a male Singaporean slightly older than I, saw
with his own eyes, together with his lawyer friend,
[who has his own law firm in Singapore], the
fraudulent rigging of the election in the Cheng San
GRC, in the counting centre of Anderson Junior College
School, which the People's Action Party, whose head
was Lee Kuan Yew, won by a very narrow margin of
ballots, this margin achieved by the simple expedient
of bringing in extra fake PAP ballots enough to win.

2. I have been publicising these facts since I was
first informed of them by my informant, first by
email, then in personal testimony, since 9 May 03 when
I was still residing in the United Kingdom, my first
public posting of such facts being 9 May 03,UK time
1044 hours [Singapore time 1744 hours]. I first posted
these facts in the newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore,
as one of my numerous postings [6,690 to date] to
inform readers of the newsgroup what I had received by
email. This, I did with Copy & Paste, so as to keep my
informant's email as accurate as possible, leaving out
only his name and anything that might reveal his
identity [the consequences of incurring the wrath of
Lee Kuan Yew is almost suicidal, so every Singaporean
knows better than to tell the truths about him, let
alone lies or slander]. I have been actively writing
articles and comments in soc.culture.singapore for
many years and use the Google Groups version to
archive all my original better articles and ideas in
this URL :--

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.singapore/browse_frm/thread/ddc17a47684cac86/6bd3bf6233471099?q=rh:+robert%27s+almost&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsoc.culture.singapore%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Dsoc.culture.singapore%26q%3Drh:+robert%27s+almost%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSearch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6bd3bf6233471099


[This URL gives the page RH: ROBERT's
ALMOST-COMPLETE ARCHIVE OF WORKS ].

3. When my wife, son and I returned from our year
and a half stay in the UK around 5 Jul 04, I
immediately emailed my informant for a face to face
meeting in which I could further probe his testimony
as to what he saw that night and early morning of the
Ballot Counting Centre in Anderson Junior College
School. He agreed, with some trepidation and
reluctance, to meet me in the Cofee Garden of the
Shangri La hotel, in which we were staying pending the
arrival of our belongings and personal effects from
the UK. My wife, KOH Gek Noi, NRIC S1174495H, a senior
manager in a large MultiNational Company, an
accountant by training and drawing a five-figure
salary, and I met this our informant from about 1pm to
nearly 5pm. During this time, my informant related to
my wife and I the events that he and his lawyer friend
saw, that showed beyond doubt that the Government of
Lee Kuan Yew rigged the Cheng San GRC election by
bringing in fake ballot papers, mostly in favour of
his PAP party candidates, in 8-10 ballot boxes by 2
men dressed in army uniforms.

4. I hereby Copy & Paste the entire original
posting I made on 9 May 03 :--

RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged? 'Proof'?



Robert Ho May 9 2003, 2:56 am
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: h...@pacific.net.sg (Robert Ho)
Date: 9 May 2003 02:56:54 -0700
Local: Fri, May 9 2003 2:56 am

Subject: RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged?
'Proof'?


QUOTE: " You may be interested to know the following:

On the polling night of the Cheng San elections I was
with a lawyer
friend - quite prominent- sitting at a coffee shop
directly opposite
the etrance to the Anderson School where the counring
was to take
place for Cheng San.

Our vantage point was about 20' higher than the road
which fronted the
school gates. The school building was another 50
metres away from the
gates. The gates were closed with two uniformed police
as security.
The lights in the open coumpound up to the building
were off but the
building lights were well on.

The counting should have started at about 8pm but we
took our
positions about 8.30pm.

We had one eye on the Anderson School counting centre
and another eye
ahead of us on the coffeeshop TV monitor perched a
little above our
heads. We could keep watch on the TV to see the
results as they came
in and also on the school.
At about 10.30pm we noticed a small closed van
approach the gates and
gates opened after some inquiry by the security police
and the small
van drove straight to the building. This was unusual
as the other few
vehicles that entered the building that we saw all
turned to the left
upon entering to park. But this van was allowed to
proceed to the
building entrance.

We were interested and watched closely the driver and
his assistant,
both in army uniforms, went to the rear doors of the
van and took our
some boxes and proceeded to carry them to the
building. They did a few
trips each with a box. The boxes looked like ballot
boxes.

We would be about 80 metres away and noted that the
van had no
markings but was of one colour which in the darkness
could have been
grey. After carrying the boxes in and immediatly
after, the van drove
off with the same two persons.
Nothing untoward occurred further that night.

We waited at the spot until all other results were out
and announced
but not Cheng San which completed at about 1.40am or
so.

We were known to one of the Cheng San opposition party
candidates and
we asked him what took so long as he was in there and
also with the
two other scrutineers of the opposition party. This
was after they
emerged from the counting centre.

They were surprised themselves and said that the
counting took some
time because there was recount after recount.

But they said that what was stranger was that they
were well into the
counting when the Rreturning officer on duty said
there were another
few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had just
arrived. This
approximated to the time we saw the van driving up to
the school
building.

The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked
the unopened boxes
and found that the opposition party seals were not in
place.They
informed the Returning Officer who then said that the
absence of the
opposition seal did not render them invalid as the
responsibility for
having the seal in posiiton was that of the opposition
party.

The boxes contents (votes) were counted and they noted
that the votes
composition was very much in favour of the PAP unlike
the other boxes
where they votes more or less balanced out.

We drove the two lady scrutineers home and upon oiur
inquiries we
learned from them in all their innocence that the
extra ballot boxes
wre only opened and counted after the initial counting
had taken
place. Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in
those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings. We
know somebody had
been had.

The Returnoing Officer is duty bound to ensure that
all ballot boxes
are in place before allowing counting to commence. "
UNQUOTE

........

RH:

Dear Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr J B Jeyaretnam,

The above email was sent to me by a friend. It seems
to be a strong
indication that the PAP falsified the Cheng San
election, which, as
you know, was 'won' narrowly by the PAP team,
defeating Mr Tang Liang
Hong and Mr J B Jeyaretnam and 3 others ( Cheng San was
a Group
Representation Constituency of 5 Members).

I believe the above email to me to be true but Mr
Jeyaretnam can
always call on his old ties with the Workers Party to
double check.
For example, my friend wrote that, "We waited at the
spot until all
other results were out and announced but not Cheng San
which completed
at about 1.40am or so." Now, this can be verified to
check that if
indeed, Cheng San was the LAST constituency to have
its results
declared. Mr Jeyaretnam could probably confirm this.

Also, "They were surprised themselves and said that
the counting took
some time because there was recount after recount."
Again, Mr
Jeyaretnam could probably confirm if there was recount
after recount,
probably to determine how many fake ballot papers were
needed for the
PAP to win.

Then, "But they said that what was stranger was that
they were well
into the counting when the Rreturning officer on duty
said there were
another few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had
just arrived"
Again, Mr Jeyaretnam or the WP election
monitors/scrutineers could
probably confirm this.

For "The scrutineers and the candidate said they
checked the unopened
boxes and found that the opposition party seals were
not in place."
Again, this can probably be confirmed by Mr Jeyaretnam
and the
monitors/scrutineers, as well as the unnamed WP
candidate.

Then, "The boxes contents (votes) were counted and
they noted that the
votes composition was very much in favour of the PAP
unlike the other
boxes where they votes more or less balanced out."
This, again, can be
verified by those present, including probably Mr
Jeyaretnam, the other
4 candidates, and the monitors/scrutineers.

This is very serious: "...the extra ballot boxes wre
only opened and
counted after the initial counting had taken place."
This is a clear
breach of election procedure and election law.

Finally, "Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in
those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings.We
know somebody had
been had." The second sentence is a fair conclusion.

What next?

Since the ballot papers are kept for only a few
months/years? they are
probably burnt by now. The lesson the Opposition
should learn is to
challenge in court the validity of any perceived
shenanigans AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE. For example, if a court order were to be
obtained for a
recount of the stored ballots, we could see WHETHER
ANY SERIAL NUMBERS
ON THE PAPERS WERE DUPLICATED OR FAKED since every
paper is serially
numbered. Also, IF THERE WERE MORE VOTES THAN
RESIDENTS IN CHENG SAN,
THIS COULD BE DISCOVERED. However, this could be
manipulated by
deleting some say, precinct result and replacing it
with a false set
so there is no overall 'gain' discrepancy.

Finally, the real danger to any democracy is
electronic voting. If
electronic voting is introduced, the results could be
manipulated any
way, at will, by those with access to the machines or
if computer
voting is used, any hacker with enough skill to hack
into the system
and change the results at will. We have already seen
how hackers seem
to enjoy targetting Opposition parties, with one
party's political
mailing list deleted, wiping out months of hard work
(other mailing
lists were left untouched) and at least one Opposition
website defaced
with a porn message.

God, what a revelation!

Robert Ho
9 May 03
UK 1044 S'pore 1744
...................................................................


5. The reaction to my postings was muted because
all the regulars and indeed, all the adults in
Singapore, know better than to even SEEM to be
anti-Lee Kuan Yew, which is almost economic suicide,
and all the regulars in the newsgroup, of which there
are not many, numbering some dozens or so, mostly let
my postings alone without even a comment, knowing that
the secret police in this police state read every
single word posted and have traced posters to charge
them in court. Indeed, I myself have been arrested
once and charged in court once for a posting I made;
then ordered to the Criminal Investigation Department
for another posting/s which such case is still
unresolved. My computer has been seized by the CID
twice, and is still now with them.

6. However, the PAPist regulars in
soc.culture.singapore, of which there are many, whose
job is to defuse any politically dangerous postings,
tried very hard, mostly by 'shouting' and repetition,
to drown out my testimony. Their favourite ploy was to
question my sanity and indeed, when I was working 2
jobs simultaneously around 1975, as a teacher by day
and a Straits Times sub-editor by night, I did have a
mental breakdown due to lack of, and irregular, sleep.
This finally culminated in a fullblown mental illness,
successfully treated in 1979, after which I returned
to work, as an advertising copywriter, for 12 years.
After which, another series of personal events
consumed my life.

7. A few days ago, on Sun 2 Jan 05, I went to a
meeting of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Ghandi Ambalam and
about a dozen others. It was their meeting, quite a
regular event and I had never joined them before. I
joined this time because I had heard that there would
be a forum to study the election system in Singapore
and I wanted the meeting to know what I had learnt
from my informant, who was a former Police Inspector
or some such high ranking officer. I took the
opportunity to testify to the meeting what I had heard
from my informant and this written testimony is the
written version largely of what I had told the meeting
verbally. I also distributed 2 copies of one of my
numerous postings in soc.culture.singapore :--

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.singapore/browse_frm/thread/bed4e7a5f81e5e47/3df0fea813e0a150?q=On+the+polling+night+of+the+Cheng+San+elections&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DOn+the+polling+night+of+the+ Cheng+San+elections%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#3df0fea813e0a150


[This URL gives the page RH: WORKERS PARTY Abdul
Rahim Bin Osman CAN TESTIFY CHENG SAN 1997 PAP FRAUD
ELECTION ].

8. If the ARDA Forum Study Group on Elections in
Singapore wants to speak with me or my wife, we can be
contacted at :--

[Contact details NOT to be published; only for use by
ARDA Committee only].

Robert HO
5 Jan 05
Singapore 0220

Robert HO
28, Bukit Batok Street 52
#20-03 Guilin View
Singapore 659248
Republic of Singapore
HP: (65) 90127417
Tel: (65) 68989553
Email: robert.ic019@gmail.com
Wife email: hogn@bp.com

==================================

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/2034


From: "boon_kang" boon_kang@...
Date: Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:52 am

Subject: "Singapore's corrupt justice system" on
Canadian media

boon_kang

"Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control
all facets of the Singapore state including the
judiciary, which is utterly
politicized," the company's court documents say. "The
judiciary bends over backwards to support the
government's and ruling elite's interests."

From: Boon Kang
Sg_Review
19 Nov 2005

"Singapore's corrupt justice system" on Canadian media

Dear Editor,

your readers may find the following news item (which
appeared on most major Canadian newspapers)
interesting.

The appeal has been approved and the date set for
April 10, 2006.

Now that the good name of Singapore's justice system
is tarnished by such accusation in Canadian court, it
would be interesting to see if PAP will initiate a
libel suit against the company EnerNorth Industries
Inc. and its lawyers who made such accusation ?


'Corrupt' ruling appealed
Ont. energy firm challenges $5.4M judgment

Richard Foot
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A Canadian company wants an Ontario court to dismiss a
multimillion dollar judgment reached against it in
Singapore on the grounds Singapore's justice system is
corrupt and unlawful.

The landmark case has wide implications for Canadians
doing business overseas. Never before, say lawyers for
both sides, has a commercial case dealt with the
question of whether a foreign judgment can be enforced
in Canada because the courts that issued it may be
inherently unfair.

Lawyers for EnerNorth Industries Inc., a Toronto-based
energy
services company, will make that argument before the
Ontario Court of Appeal in April, in a bid to avoid
paying a $5.4-million US judgment awarded to Oakwell
Engineering Ltd., a Singapore firm.

One of EnerNorth's lawyers, David Wingfield, said if
the Singapore decision is upheld in Canada, a
precedent will be set which would turn the Canadian
courts into "little more than a glorified sheriff's
department for all foreign legal systems -- no matter
how odious or compromised they are by reason of
government influence or monetary bribery."

Oakwell's lawyer, Ed Babin, said Canadian courts
enforce judgments from other countries all the time
and that refusing to do so in this case would carve
out "a dramatic change" in the law.

In 1997, EnerNorth embarked on a project with Oakwell
to finance,
build and operate two power plants in India. In 2002,
after the
project ran into problems, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in
the Singapore courts -- where each company had
previously agreed they would settle any disputes.

The trial and appeal courts in Singapore allowed
Oakwell's claim,
awarding it damages against EnerNorth. Because
EnerNorth's assets are in Canada, Oakwell asked a
Canadian court to enforce the decision.

Last August, Ontario Superior Court Justice Gerald Day
agreed with Oakwell's request, dismissing arguments by
EnerNorth that the Singapore judgment is tainted by
that country's allegedly corrupt and biased legal
system.

"If this court were to accept the argument of general
bias in this case, it would mean that no judgments
from Singapore courts would be enforceable in
Ontario," wrote Day in his decision,

But in documents filed with the Ontario Court of
Appeal, EnerNorth's lawyers say Day failed to apply
the proper legal test required of Canadian courts when
enforcing foreign judgments.

In 2003 -- in a case involving a decision from a U.S.
court -- the Supreme Court of Canada said Canadian
courts can only recognize a foreign judgment if the
foreign legal system meets Canadian constitutional
standards.

The Singapore decision is the first foreign judgment,
issued in a
country other than Britain or the U.S., to be tested
under this
principle, said Wingfield. EnerNorth says Singapore's
justice system fails to meet Canadian standards by
almost every measure.

"Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control
all facets of the Singapore state including the
judiciary, which is utterly
politicized," the company's court documents say. "The
judiciary bends over backwards to support the
government's and ruling elite's interests."

The documents also say Oakwell is a subsidiary of a
Singapore
conglomerate whose owners have close ties with
Singapore's government and ruling party and that the
judges who presided over the case in Singapore also
have close ties with Singapore's leaders.

Day said he could find "no cogent evidence" that there
was specific bias toward Oakwell by the Singapore
courts. However, EnerNorth says evidence of general
bias, or systemic corruption, is enough to reject the
judgment in Canada.

"EnerNorth is faced with having its assets seized
under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted
by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a
jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law,"
the company's documents say.

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

source:
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=ad17e1f7-2799-4de0-8a8b-fd68ffb1358a

For related discussions see:

1) Mellanie Hewlitt; Lifting The Veil On Singapore
Politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1755

2) Carl Kapeland: Legitimized Corruption Understood
http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/2005/07/singapore-review-legitimized.html


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Suffering Singapore's slings, arrows




AGE, Melbourne
April 19, 2006
By Michael Backman

DOES Singapore have a sound legal system or is Singapore just another autocracy with a leadership that subverts the law to preserve its own power?

Should its court orders relating to commercial and other matters be enforced in countries that do have excellent legal systems? These are matters over which a Canadian court has been asked to rule in a case that is hugely embarrassing to Singapore's Government, particularly in an election year.

Singapore does well in Transparency International's annual survey of perceptions of corruption, but it needs to be remembered perceptions are surveyed, not reality. Sure, it's unlikely you will ever be asked for a bribe or a kickback in Singapore, but should corruption be so narrowly defined?

Canadian oil and gas company EnerNorth Industries set up a joint venture with Singapore's Oakwell Engineering in 1997 to finance, build and operate two mobile power plants in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

The Indian Government, at various levels, was obstructionist, and by 2002 it was clear to EnerNorth that plans for the power plants would not be realised. EnerNorth did not secure the agreed financing and so Oakwell sued it in a Singapore court in 2003, obtaining a favourable US$5.4 million judgement. EnerNorth appealed unsuccessfully.

EnerNorth has few or no assets in Singapore, so Oakwell next applied to Ontario's Superior Court of Justice in Canada for the Singapore judgement to be enforced there, so it could pursue EnerNorth's Canadian assets. The Canadian court ruled that the Singapore judgement should be enforced. EnerNorth appealed, which was heard last week.

What was the basis for EnerNorth's appeal? In 2003, Canada's Supreme Court said Canadian courts can only recognise a foreign judgement if the legal system that produced the judgement meets Canada's constitutional standards. And so EnerNorth's lawyers, in their written submission, argued that Singapore's legal system is not on a par with Canada's and so the Singapore decision against their client should not be enforceable in Canada.

The submission says the Singapore judgement "was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the law".

It presents evidence that it says reveals "Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who controls all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicised. The judiciary bends over backwards to support the Government's and ruling elite's interests."

Dr Ross Worthington, an expert on governance who has written extensively about Singapore, and is employed by the World Bank, said in an affidavit on behalf of EnerNorth that "all aspects of the governance of Singapore, including the judiciary, are carefully manipulated and ultimately controlled by a core executive of individuals who use their powers to maintain their own power and further their own political, economic, social and familial interests".

EnerNorth's submission also cites the regular use of defamation actions by senior Government figures to bankrupt opposition politicians, thereby disqualifying them from sitting in Parliament. Mentioned is the case of J. B. Jeyaretnam, when as Singapore's only opposition member of Parliament, was sued for defamation by a Government minister and ultimately bankrupted. Today he can often be seen selling copies of a self-published book near the underground train station exit, close to Raffles City Shopping Centre, a broken, lonely figure past whom many Singaporeans rush for fear of being seen near him.

EnerNorth's submission also cites the Societies Act, which requires that organisations of more than 10 people must have a Government-appointed representative, and no public meeting can proceed unless the police first issue a permit that specifies the duration of the meeting, the names of the speakers, their topics and the length of time they will speak.

Also cited is the state of Singapore's media � all outlets of which are owned either directly or indirectly by Government-linked companies � as is the change to the constitution so that Singaporeans who remain outside the country for 10 or more years can be stripped of their citizenship. It is a move that takes aim at Government critics who have gone into self-imposed exile.

Judicial independence is questioned: it is pointed out, for instance, that up to half the Supreme Court judges at any time are under contract and do not have security of tenure, including the chief justice. They are appointed by the executive and beholden to it.

A further EnerNorth contention is that Oakwell is part of the Koh Brothers Group, which is heavily reliant on Singapore Government contracts. EnerNorth also says that at the time of the first judgement, directors in the group included a former member of the Government's Inland Revenue Authority, a senior parliamentary secretary, a senior minister of state and ambassador, and a former president of the Government-affiliated National Trade Unions Congress.

And then there is the matter of the first presiding judge. Before his appointment to the bench, he practised at the law firm Lee & Lee, the firm founded by former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and later run by his wife. It was this same judge, who on J. B. Jeyaretnam's appeal from a lower court, increased the fine that he was required to pay that led to his expulsion from Parliament.

So does Singapore have a fair and independent judiciary on a par with Canada's or, for that matter, Australia's? Should its decisions against Canadian or Australian companies be enforced in their home countries?

This is particularly pertinent given the huge and highly intrusive role that Singapore's Government plays in business matters in Singapore, and if judges are biased in favour of the Government as EnerNorth contends. The Canadian appeals judge has reserved his decision. But you don't have to. The full submissions of Oakwell and EnerNorth are available at www.enernorth.com/litigation.html . How the legal system operates in Singapore makes for extraordinary reading.

.................................

P.S. AFTER 1997, THE CONSTITUENCY OF CHENG SAN DISAPPEARED FROM THE ELECTORAL MAPS BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN UP AND ABSORBED INTO THE NEIGHBOURING CONSTITUENCIES. LEE KUAN YEW KNEW HE HAD LOST CHENG SAN AND COULD NOT AFFORD TO CONTEST CHENG SAN EVER AGAIN.