Talk:Chee Soon Juan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Chee Soon Juan is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Not very encyclopaedic in tone

This reads like a fanboy/fangirl wrote it in places. Ironically, the article on Lee Kuan Yew is much better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.53.184 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Election status

  • The next year he was fined for commenting on religion and he is now ineligible for the next general election.
  • He now leads his party into the next general election.

So which one is correct?

Both are correct. --Vsion 06:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He 'led' them in the sense that he is the leader of his party, though he did not take part in the election.

[edit] Chee Soon Juan for Prime Minister

Godspeed Mr. Chee. Perhaps you will be the one to lead your people to enlightenment.--69.231.207.198 22:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Chee Soon Juan for Prime Minister? Now that is something new! If that day arrives, Singapore will be thrown into a political crisis! Mr. Chee is currently contributing to his downfall and I would not be surprised if he goes into prison again. Mr. Chee is playing with fire! --Siva1979Talk to me 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, yes, but...uh...enlightenment? I'm skeptical.--Tdxiang 12:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content on judiciary independence

Transfer content from article for preservation and potential use in other articles. The article should focus on Chee.

In fact, Chee was not the first person to question the independence of the country's judiciary. In 1994, an American academic, Dr Christopher Lingle, mentioned in a commentary he wrote in the International Herald Tribune (IHT) that "intolerant regimes" in Asia made use of a "compliant judiciary" to "bankrupt opposition politicians in suppressing dissent." Lingle, who was then employed in the National University of Singapore as a senior lecturer, was interrogated for 90 minutes by the Singapore police for possible contempt of court and criminal defamation. One week later, he was forced to return to the United States. He and the Singapore printer of the IHT were subsequently fined for "contempt of court by way of scandalising the (Singapore]] judiciary" even though he did not specifically mentioned the name Singapore. He was ordered to pay the government's legal costs totalling more than $100,000. Lingle did not return to Singapore to face the charges. However, the Singapore government managed to recover these legal costs by confiscating the money that he had accumulated over the years in the mandatory Singapore state pension fund known as the CPF. See "A Chronology of Authoritarian Rule in Singapore" [1] and "The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore" [2]. A leading American columnist and journalist, William Safire, also noted in his columns in the New York Times that Singapore had never had an independent judiciary since independence in 1965. Safire was one of the harshest critics of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister and founding father of the modern nation.[3]

--Vsion 06:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies and POVs within the article

I'm new here, but I have a very small comment: that the following:

>a 72 hour protest against Singapore's restrictive laws

is a POV, and might be better served as

>a 72 hour protest against Singapore's laws on public gatherings and rallies.

Added by hungrywolf41, 25/09/2006

These are comments by Dr. Chee Soon Juan concerning the article. I agree with most of Dr. Chee's comments and when I have time will change any inaccuarcies and POVs. I encourage others to help and for any information always provide the appropriate sources.

The (last) Chinese character of my name (in red) is incorrect 徐顺泉.
"He was fellow at the Monash Asia Institute in 1997."
This is incorrect. I was an Honorary Research Associate.
"Reagan fellow at the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy. "
I was the Reagan-Fascell Fellow.
"In 2004 he participated in the Reagan-Fascell Democracy Program at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C.
This is the same as the Reagan-Fascell Fellow.
“At the May 6 elections, the SDP was the worst performer at the polls, their candidates being the only ones who did not garner at least 25% of the votes. The poor result was perceived to be due to Singaporeans being unable to accept Chee's confrontational style of political reform.”
This observation has been propagated by the PAP and its media. Your report mentions nothing about the lawsuit and the relentless media attack on the SDP throughout the campaign. Please see the behind-the-scenes tactics of the PAP (http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlenussforum.html). It is not simply a matter of the electorate “being unable to accept Chee's confrontational style of political reform.” The political system in Singapore is so undemocratic that any interpretation of election results must be done with extreme caution and circumspect. Does Wikipedia provide merely the facts or does it also try to interpret events? If it is the latter, then one has to be very carefully of which source and what information it uses for its interpretation.
“In 1997, MacPherson was, at his request, separated from the Marine Parade Group-Constituency to allow him to take on Matthias Yao in a one on one fight.”
I did not request for MacPherson to be singled out. I had achallenged Matthias Yao to a non-on-one contest and he was the one who asked the Prime Minister to take MacPherson out of the Marade Parade GRC and the PM obliged. (Doesn’t this itself raise questions about the fact that the PAP is able to deteremine which constituencies remain as SMCs and which ones GRCs, not to mention how the boundaries are redrawn?) There is also no mention of the fact that several of the ballot boxes in that MacPherson contest was transported to the Singapore Conference Hall (a center in downtown Singapore) for counting. There was never any explanation why that happened.
“In 1993, he was sacked by NUS for allegedly misappropriate use of research funds - the use of University funds to send documents, despite, according to his account, him having secured prior verbal consent…”
I did not simply secure a “prior verbal consent”. Everything was done according to procedure – I filled up a form and the head of dept Dr S Vasoo (who was a PAP MP) signed the form to approve payment which was then forwarded to the Bursar’s Office for payment. I did not handle money at any point in time. Where did this “prior verbal consent” come from? If Vasoo signed the form, indicating that he had full knowledge of what was being paid for, then how can he later accuse me of misusing the funds of a couple of hundred dollars for courier postage. The transaction took place in Sept 1992, three months before I joined the SDP and took part in the Marine Parade by-election in Dec 1992. Three months later in March 1993, I was sacked. Doesn’t this seem a bit strange to you given the history of political victimisation in Singapore?
“- and in protest he staged a hunger strike, albeit while hooked to a drip”
I was not hooked to anything, mush less a drip, during my hunger strike. Again, where did you get this information from? I sustained myself only on water mixed with glucose during the entire 10-day fast.
Apologies. The wrong information was from [4]. I searched the ST archives - no mention of a drip. gssq 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
“However, as Chee is declaring himself as a champion of democracy,”
I have always stated that I believe in democracy and would fight for it. This is very different from “declaring himself as a champion of democracy”. Can you please show me the quote where I have declared myself in such a manner?
“his statements and political stances are usually seen by many Singaporeans in a bad light, with the Singapore Government seemingly encouraging this view through the local media, as often alleged by his supporters.”
The local media in Singapore is owned and run by the Government. The Singapore Press Holdings is chaired by the former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan. The phrase “seemingly encouraging this view” cannot be credible. Reporters Without Borders ranks the press in Singapore 140th out of 167 countries and there is a reason for this.
“During a recent disagreement between the governments of Singapore and Australia regarding the hanging of Van Tuong Nguyen, a convicted Australian drug smuggler in Singapore, Chee encouraged Australians to boycott Singapore products and supported claims for trade sanctions against Singapore by Australia.”
Can you please show me the quote in which I did this? This is a very serious allegation of me and it must be substantiated.
“In a letter to the Singapore daily newspaper "The New Paper", dated 19 December 2005 Dr. Chee likened his treatment by the ruling PAP party to Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi and even South Africa's Nelson Mandela.”
The PAP’s supporters had accused me of being a traitor. I pointed out the fact that other democracy advocates such as Aung San Suu Kyi, Benigno Aquino, and Shin Ming-te had also been called traitors. But by saying that I have “likened” my tretament by the PAP to ASSK and Mandela, you have distorted the message in my letter and given readers an impression that is completely false.
“He has made these comparisons before during an interview with CNN in 2002.”
This is what I said in that interview that you refer to: ‘I look at some of the dissidents who have gone through difficulty, trials and tribulations, whether its Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Shih MingTe in Taiwan or Aquino in the Philippines, I think they all have a very strong message for humanity. And that is, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how repressive the government is, there is this spirituality about us that will not allow us to look the other way when injustice occurs, to pretend that nothing is happening when the poor are being oppressed, that I think is what I look up to and hope to continue the fight.’
I clearly said that Gandhi, King, Shih, Aquino and their messages are “what I look up to.” How does this become “comparisons” that I making between these luminaries and myself in your report?
“Recently, some of his party colleagues including party chairman Ling How Doong have said that the party "would be run even better" without its secretary-general, Chee, who was sentenced to jail for criticising the Singapore judiciary. They felt Chee was too obsessed with international issues and this had isolated the party from the local voters, who are more concerned with bread and butter issues. To this, Chee's sister, Chee Siok Chin, a member of the party's central executive committee, rebutted the claim that there was a spilt within the party.”
This information came from only the Straits Times. Ling had refuted the report saying that he said no such thing. The actual words that he said when he spoke with me was: “If Chee is jailed during the elections, the Party would have to go on. It could be worse or it could be run better, but we have to continue to fight.” You did not cite a subsequent report that reported that Ling had not made such a statement.
“However, the Singapore electorate dealt Chee a stern rebuke.”
Again with the political system the way that it is in Singapore, it would take someone very bold or very misinformed to make such a conclusion as if the elections and the results take place in a democratic system. What about everything that went on during the lections, indluding the underhanded tactics that the PAP employed that I mentioned earlier. Are these not factors that contributed to the results other than just the voters being unhappy with the SDP’s tactics? Again, why the editorialising if the report is just to provide accurate information?
“With the opposition parties generally gaining ground, with the national average of opposition votes increasing to about 33%, none of the candidates from Chee's Singapore Democratic Party managed to muster even 25% of the votes. The next lowest percentage of votes gained by an opposition parties all got more than 30%.”
You did not mention that the report that the SDP received from the PAP-controlled media was very different from that of the other opposition parties. Even the Workers’ Party admitted that they received fairer media coverage. Again please see (http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlenussforum.html) for more information about the matter.
“Chee was sued by his own political mentor, Chiam See Tong for insinuating that Chiam was acting on behalf of the ruling party”
One, Mr Chiam did not sue only me. He sued the SDP. This statement is very inaccurate. Two, where did you get the information that Chiam was my mentor? A “mentor” is a wise and trusted counselor; someone who provides guidance to an apprentice, student or trainee. I hadn’t met Mr Chiam before I joined the SDP and after that had only a couple of months with him before he left. How could he have been my mentor in such a situation?
"He lost and was ordered, with others, to pay to Chiam the sum of $150,000.”
Again, it was the SDP, not me, that lost the case and paid Mr Chiam the damages.
“In 2001, Chee was sued for defamation by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew for remarks he made during the Singapore General Election. He accused both Goh and Lee for misleading Parliament”
I did not accuse Lee and Goh of “misleading the Parliament.” This was what the two had claimed. I had asked Mr Goh “Where is the money (loaned to Indonesia)?” I did not even mention Lee kuan Yew.
“The television broadcasts showed Chee running after Goh ranting through a loudhailer”
You cannot find me “running” after Goh because in did not happen? Where did you get this information. I was standing on top of our campaign truck when I spoke into a microphone, not a loudhailer. All this information was massaged and manufactured by the local media which I suspected this report depended on.
“Many of his political allies were dismayed at his outburst and the negative publicity portrayed through the television broadcast. Members of other opposition parties, who originally urged the electorate to vote for all opposition parties, backtracked and asked the electorate only to vote for their own parties.”
It was Chiam that had originally asked voters to vote for all opposition candidates. But he withdrew his statement after Goh Chok Tong visited his constituency during the 2001 elections and questioned him about asking voters to vote for the SDP.
“Chee himself lost the lawsuits and was ordered to pay S$200,000 to Lee and S$300,000 to Goh.”
You did not mention that there was no trial but just a summary judgment conducted behind closed-doors and that I was not allowed to call witnesses and cross-examine the Lee and Goh.
"On 10 February 2006, Chee was declared a bankrupt by the High Court, after failing to pay S$500,000 in damages awarded to Goh and Lee. Upon this bankruptcy order, Chee will not be allowed to stand for elections until February 2011"
Where did this information come from? I will not be eligible for elections as long as I am a bankrupt, not until 2011.
“Later, Chee was sentenced to a day in jail and a fine of $6,000, but he failed to pay the fine and was jailed for an additional seven days.”
I had refused to pay the fine.
“In 2002, Chee was fined S$3,000 for commenting on religion at Singapore's "Speakers' Corner" on 15 February 2002…”
I had not commented on religion. I had spoken out on a ban of three Muslim schoolgirls from attending class for wanting to wera their headscarve. It was a human rights issue. The Singapore govt said I was speaking about a religious topic. The report could have reflected my side of the argument which was tended in court.

--Ghormax 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed quite serious. How did you receive Chee's comments? --Vsion 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I made an edit to remove some POV and unverfied content; and reworded others where appropriate.
  • There are some areas I'm not too sure and need further research, such as Chee's comments to CNN and in Australia. The related content is removed until verified.
  • It seems that many of these content were added by an anon who created the article on 30 July 2005, [5].
--Vsion 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I received an e-mail from Dr. Chee. I once asked him for a photograph to be used in the article and he probably assumed that I was the author of this article. Due to time constraints I have not been able to keep track of all the changes. --Ghormax 10:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The following three edits are the sources of most of the challenged items listed above.
--Vsion 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
References on Chee's comments in Australia, Nov 2005
--Vsion 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You can email Dr Chee. His email address can be found on his party's website.

It's very true. I received an email from SDP with the same content.--Tdxiang 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that Dr. Chee is trying to improve his international image by providing "corrections" to his article on Wikipedia (U.S.-based). I read a Wikipedia policy somewhere which says that as long as you are famous, you don't have to write an article about yourself, someone will do it for you. I mean, neither LKY nor LHL have bothered about their articles on Wikipedia, and they have more of a reputation to upkeep. Although I'm an opposition supporter, I find that Chee tries to find fault with everything, agree? --Terrancommander 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Except for sucking up to Western/Caucasian countries, he doesn't find fault. Complain to Australia, fight for Nguyen's life, seem so heroic - to the Western countries at least. We don't find it amusing nor heroic, but politic, because we know his true intentions. Should we put that in? I don't reckon you have to ask him for a photo also, can just kope one from Google search right? Anyway, the SDP did not divide, at least, not really. Chiam See Tong was voted to be kicked out of the party overwhelmingly, following a pointless hunger strike by Chee. --Terrancommander 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Many of his comments regarding the factual accuracy are rather inaccurate. He feels that the tudung is a "Human Rights'" issue. Isn't it just his opinion? In fact, I think most of his statements there are his personal opinions. E.g. "failing to pay the fine" is a fact, he didn't pay, but "refusing to pay the fine" is his opinion. (He says he refused, how do you know? No sources. He's just digging his own grave by defying the court right?) As for the loan to Indonesia, which was never initiated in the first place, he had actually embarrassed Lee by shouting at Lee insolently ("Hey Mr. Lee! Where's the money that we lent to Indonesia?") while Lee was touring an estate to garner votes. (From TV telecast) However, I do agree that the media is biased towards the PAP. (Mr. Brown incident) --Terrancommander 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To cap it all, I think that Dr. Chee's points should be verified by an external source (out of this country). This would be most accurate as I think neither Chee's points nor the media's points are accurate. (Except for that TV telecast of the shouting) Dr. Chee's tactic is not to garner votes from the population, but to initiate a bad reputation of the PAP Government abroad, as can be seen with the Nguyen case (Anti-death penalty), the tudung case (Human rights), and the most serious: Getting the PAP to sue him and subsequently being declared bankrupt. (To show that the PAP is suppressing opposition in Singapore.) If one notices, this are all issues with intent of getting international attention, rather than getting Singaporeans' attention, and more importantly, trying to draw an allusion to Aung Su Kyi, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi as he himself mentioned. I see that Dr. Chee has not included his motive for challenging the PAP in suicidal cases to dig his own grave. He cannot be that (censored) right? --Terrancommander 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Getting the PAP to sue him"
If this is wrong, then JBJ, Tang, Seow, etc.. will be in bed with him too, no?

I find the whole tone of this article disturbing. It seems to me that there is an assumption that a government official has a right to bring a defamation suit against a member of the opposition just because there is such a law on the books in Singapore, something which would be considered a severe restriction on freedom of speech in a democratic country.

I don’t think it shows bias to present a basic point of view that elections should be free and fair and that the rules should give the opposition a reasonable chance of winning. Most international observers don’t think that is the case in Singapore. Basic rights such as freedom of speech and assembly are enshrined in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The idea that an article in this encyclopedia should take the view that such basic human rights are just a matter of politics seems ridiculous to me. (Royotto1 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] We need an improvement on this article!!!

Keep all the references, if not making minor adjustments to them.

But this article requires some encyclopedic elaboration... Can anyone help, please?Ruennsheng (Talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And ain't this article referenced and verified, as both the PAP's and SDP's views are represented? Ruennsheng (Talk) 04:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)