mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2008-07-01 21:24:00 |
|
Democracy is Come from Singapore
I think someone who writes as quoted below either has no sense of irony or has a wicked sense of irony:
1. "The [libel] case [involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Ms. Chee Siok Chin] had nothing to do with political freedom."
[Of course. How could it have had anything to do with political freedom when there isn't any to speak of?]
2. "Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists.""
[Ah, but it's OK to insinuate that Dr. Chee is a psychopath and call him a cheat.]
3. "Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law."
[Emphasis mine. Apologies for emphasizing the wrong part. I think the emphasis should be on the last four words instead.]
4. "Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media."
[I would prefer to say that Singapore's laws must be decided by those who deserve to be called Singaporeans, not self-serving crooks. Of course, I am thankful that no such person has yet been given a chance to decide laws.
Don't tellSingapore the people controlling Singapore what to do. Even if they decide to execute all Singaporean bloggers, no one has the right to say that things must change.]
5. "They [foreigners] have no right to defame [who does??!!!] to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore."
[Yes. Yes. Only The Straits Times has the right to give a skewed account of court proceedings. Because they skew in the right way.
And wow, wow, wow!! Western democracy has to be used with inverted commas, as though it's not real democracy. Perhaps Singapore's brand ofdemocracy by autocracy Asian democracy is the true, authentic form of democracy.]
Since Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, may Molly politely say that one should stop tying a party's political dominance to national sovereignty. Since Singapore's laws should be decided by Singaporeans, may I take the chance to call for the abolition of oppressive laws such as that absurd one on party political films, or that one which says that two consenting men can't have sex with each other in the privacy of their homes? (Oh, of course not. Some Singaporeans are more Singaporean than others--and know better than the rest of the world.)
----------------
Two Views of Freedom of Speech and Law in Singapore
Your editorial ("Democracy in Singapore," June 26), relying on a "partial transcript," has misunderstood the issue in the libel case involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister.
The case had nothing to do with political freedom. It was for defamation arising from the Chees' false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt. Despite being advised by a Queen's Counsel, they failed to produce any credible defense or evidence to back up their claims.
Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists." The Chees also rebuked the judge, ignored her orders and shouted her down. In Ms. Chee's defense, her lawyer could only claim that she was "almost paranoid." This is why the judge sentenced the Chees to imprisonment for scandalizing the court.
Many opposition politicians routinely criticize government leaders, but are not sued because they have not uttered slanderous falsehoods. Contrary to your editorial, Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law.
Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media. Foreign media are entitled to report and comment on what is happening in Singapore, but they circulate here subject to Singapore law. They have no right to defame, to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore.
Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore
I think someone who writes as quoted below either has no sense of irony or has a wicked sense of irony:
1. "The [libel] case [involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Ms. Chee Siok Chin] had nothing to do with political freedom."
[Of course. How could it have had anything to do with political freedom when there isn't any to speak of?]
2. "Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists.""
[Ah, but it's OK to insinuate that Dr. Chee is a psychopath and call him a cheat.]
3. "Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law."
[Emphasis mine. Apologies for emphasizing the wrong part. I think the emphasis should be on the last four words instead.]
4. "Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media."
[I would prefer to say that Singapore's laws must be decided by those who deserve to be called Singaporeans, not self-serving crooks. Of course, I am thankful that no such person has yet been given a chance to decide laws.
Don't tell
5. "They [foreigners] have no right to defame [who does??!!!] to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore."
[Yes. Yes. Only The Straits Times has the right to give a skewed account of court proceedings. Because they skew in the right way.
And wow, wow, wow!! Western democracy has to be used with inverted commas, as though it's not real democracy. Perhaps Singapore's brand of
Since Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, may Molly politely say that one should stop tying a party's political dominance to national sovereignty. Since Singapore's laws should be decided by Singaporeans, may I take the chance to call for the abolition of oppressive laws such as that absurd one on party political films, or that one which says that two consenting men can't have sex with each other in the privacy of their homes? (Oh, of course not. Some Singaporeans are more Singaporean than others--and know better than the rest of the world.)
----------------
Two Views of Freedom of Speech and Law in Singapore
Your editorial ("Democracy in Singapore," June 26), relying on a "partial transcript," has misunderstood the issue in the libel case involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister.
The case had nothing to do with political freedom. It was for defamation arising from the Chees' false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt. Despite being advised by a Queen's Counsel, they failed to produce any credible defense or evidence to back up their claims.
Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists." The Chees also rebuked the judge, ignored her orders and shouted her down. In Ms. Chee's defense, her lawyer could only claim that she was "almost paranoid." This is why the judge sentenced the Chees to imprisonment for scandalizing the court.
Many opposition politicians routinely criticize government leaders, but are not sued because they have not uttered slanderous falsehoods. Contrary to your editorial, Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law.
Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media. Foreign media are entitled to report and comment on what is happening in Singapore, but they circulate here subject to Singapore law. They have no right to defame, to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore.
Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore
