Obama to receive Singapore plea: BBC
-
Obama to receive Singapore plea: BBC
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
BBC News
The leader of a Singapore opposition party has posted a video message asking for US President Obama's support.
Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, posted his "message to President Obama" on the video sharing website YouTube.
Mr Chee said he hopes that the US "will pay more attention to the human rights abuses of the Singapore government".
Mr Chee has been jailed several times and faces multiple charges of defying local protest laws and other offences.
His Youtube message began with congratulations to Mr Obama, describing his inauguration as "an occasion of great moment".
He reminded the US president of his words on International Human Rights Day in December 2008, when he had aligned the US with "men and women around the world who struggle for the rights to speak their minds, choose their leaders and be treated with dignity and respect".
"Clever repression"
Mr Chee then spoke of the many men and women around Asia suffering in that struggle, notably Burmese opposition icon Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest.
Mr Chee expressed the hope that with Mr Obama in charge, it could not be "repression as usual" in Burma, and that "urgent change must come" to the country ruled by a military junta.
In Singapore, Mr Chee claimed, repression was exercised through the "clever use" of terms such as rule of law and good governance "to cover up what is effectively a dictatorship".
"How else do we describe a government prohibits public speech and peaceful assembly controls media, detains citizens without trial and manipulates elections?" he said.
He expressed the hope that Mr Obama might "take positive steps to help Singapore join the community of democracies."
"Under your leadership I look forward to a world that is freer, more democratic and more just," said Mr Chee.
Economic concerns
Mr Chee's YouTube message includes pictures apparently of poor Singaporeans living in cardboard boxes - an allusion to growing economic distress in a state that has made impressive economic success a key plank of its appeal at the ballot box.
The Singapore government has announced a new low in the level of economic performance expected this year - a contraction of between 2% and 5%.
Singapore President SR Nathan sent his own congratulatory message to Mr Obama in which he expressed the hope that the US would provide new economic leadership.
Mr Nathan noted the close ties between Singapore and the US which he described as longstanding, close, multifaceted and versatile.
The Straits Times newspaper in Singapore carried a brief report about Mr Chee's message without comment on Wednesday.
In the past the government has dismissed complaints about restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly as without substance.
A park is designated as a space for free speech in Singapore; outside that area, gatherings of more than five people need official permission.
Mr Chee is one of the few Singaporeans who have publicly spoken against Singapore's People's Action Party, which has ruled since 1959.
Singapore's leaders say tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure the stability which has helped the city-state achieve economic success.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7841485.stm
Singapore opposition leader appeals to Obama on rights
AFP
The leader of a Singapore opposition party, jailed numerous times for defying local protest laws and for other offences, has posted a video message asking for US President Barack Obama's support.
Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, posted his "message to President Obama" on the video sharing website YouTube, where he called Obama's Tuesday inauguration "an occasion of great moment."
Chee expressed hope that the United States "will pay more attention to the human rights abuses of the Singapore government and take positive steps to help Singapore join the community of democracies."
Chee, dressed in a dark suit and a tie, sat at a desk to deliver the message lasting more than five minutes.
He said his party was especially encouraged by what Obama, the first black president of the United States, has said about human rights.
"Under your leadership I look forward to a world that is freer, more democratic and more just," said Chee.
He is one of the few Singaporeans who have publicly spoken against Singapore's People's Action Party, which has ruled since 1959.
Since independence in 1965, Singapore has grown from a Third World country to an Asian economic powerhouse. But critics say this has come at a price, in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and political activity.
The ruling party has all but two of the 84 elected seats in parliament, and the opposition's complaints include a lack of access to mainstream media in the country.
Except for a park that serves as a designated area for limited free speech, it is illegal to hold a public gathering of five or more people in Singapore without a police permit.
Singapore's leaders say tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure the stability which has helped the city-state achieve economic success.
The government has said allegations that Singapore fails to meet international standards for political and human rights are without substance.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col...Dr Chee Soon Juan's message to President Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v -
While i can agree that Singapore does need to be more democractic and just, i find the idea of "freer" a very subjective term.
What exactly does this "freer" entails? The right to protest in the streets and disable government ministries because the protesters feel as long as they're justified they can do anything?
Granted , there are going to be positive effects in being more free which currently i cannot think of any examples for. But we need to look at the concept of freedom as an idea that is extremely subjected to interpretation by every single individual not as a natural magic bullet that will solve all problems.
Are not the multinational corporations free to express their opinions louder than the average individual? What benefits the corporations' employees and board of directors would not neccesarily benefit the country as a whole.The Americans have already proven that to us.
If we want freedom, we got to understand it's a responsibility not a bloody right.
-
Freedom of expreesion is our right according to constitution of Singapore.
-
Accordingly to the constitution of Singapore, that is correct.
I merely see it more as a responsibility, not a right.
-
I merely see it more as a responsibility, not a right.
Whose's responsibility?
-
where did it say that obama will receive the plea?
-
Mine.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
where did it say that obama will receive the plea?
Hrm you're right, there's no mention of it.
And this is what i mean by being responsible for what we want to say
-
The issue with free speech really, is that the government does not like criticism of any form that is relatively public. Racist views are few and far in between and rarely public. Quite frankly, the government just simply refuses to allow alternative views and jealously guards what it regards as its turf.
-
I think Obama will appreciate what the PAP government is doing, because as a leader, Obama will look at the whole picture.
He may comment that one part of the picture is not done well, and give his opinion. But generally he would be pleased with the whole picture.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
I think Obama will appreciate what the PAP government is doing, because as a leader, Obama will look at the whole picture.
He may comment that one part of the picture is not done well, and give his opinion. But generally he would be pleased with the whole picture.
Even if Obama did make any comment, the PAP government wouldn't give a shit. They will just indulge in some nationalistic indignation and pretend it never happened.
And appreciate? What have we done? We are a small country, and our actions are relatively local and hardly worth even a mention. For example, no one in the US gives a shit when our PM makes a visit.
-
A letter to President Barack Obama
To,
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20500
Jan 22, 2009 First Class Mail
Dear President Obama,
I would like to congratulate you in becoming the President of the United States. In your presidency, you carry the hope of many around the world who seek freedom. I believe that with your presidency, we can achieve a new age where freedom will be the bedrock upon which everything else will depend.
This letter is a plea to you to help the countless people in Singapore who are suffering under the crushing yoke of Lee Kuan Yew's dictatorship. One of his victims is myself.
I wish to tell you my story.
I am an American citizen, born in Singapore and formerly a Singapore citizen. I lived most of my life in Singapore, and was educated there. I then went to England to read law and was admitted to the English Bar. Thereafter I returned to Singapore, was admitted to the Singapore Bar, and practiced there law until 1991, when I came to the United States, obtained asylum for the persecution I suffered for my political beliefs. I was admitted to the California Bar and have been practicing law here ever since.
On May 26, 2008, I went to Singapore to observe a defamation of character trial in which the Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew and his son, the Prime Minister were suing Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister Miss Chee Siok Chin who are opposition politicians, for having written an article critical of them.
Being a lawyer and someone personally involved in Singapore politics, this trial was of particular interest for me, especially since it was publicized that Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin will be cross examining Lee and his son. This particular hearing was to decide the quantum of damages the court will award to the Lees since they had already won this lawsuit earlier. This hearing was scheduled to be heard by Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in the Singapore High Court from May 26, 2008 to May 28, 2008. I planned my trip to Singapore to last from May 26, 2008 to June 1, 2008, a period of 7 days to enable me to attend the trial as an observer and return after spending the remaining few days in Singapore.
I was in Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean's court for all 3 days listening to the trial. Throughout the 3 days, this Judge was completely biased in favor of the Lees. She did not give the Defendant Dr. Chee Soon Juan or his sister Miss Chee Siok Chin any meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. Anyone who had observed the trial would have walked away with the same opinion. Full details of Judge Ang's complete abdication of her judicial responsibility is well documented in Dr. Chee Soon Juan blog, http://www.yoursdp.org/.
On the 29th of May, 2008 in Singapore, after the court hearing was over, I wrote a blog post on my blog "Singapore Dissident", http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/ entitled Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court in which I criticized her conduct in her judicial capacity during the 3 days of trial. I am attaching a copy of this blog post.
On Saturday May 31, 2008 at about 8.30 pm, while I was descending from my 7th Floor hotel room at Broadway Hotel, Serangoon Road, Singapore, I was arrested by 5 plain clothes policemen when the elevator door opened at the ground floor lobby. I was handcuffed, pushed back into the elevator, rode to the floor where my room was ransacked and my American passport and personal documents confiscated. I was then driven in their police car to Central Police Station where I was kept in solitary confinement for 6 days during which time I was repeatedly interrogated day and night and accused of having sent Emails to this judge and others, which I never did. I was charged for this. The charge read that I had insulted the judge in the Emails.
When I denied ever sending any Emails, I was charged under the Sedition Act of Singapore for having insulted this judge and told that I will be sentenced to a prison term of up to 3 years if convicted. Subsequently, they reverted back to the Email charge. Finally I was charged for having insulted this judge because I had written this blog post in my blog.
The Singapore Constitution has a provision like in most other constitutions of the world guaranteeing free speech, expression and assembly. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights guarantees this right to every person in this world regardless of race creed or religion. In my writing this blog post in criticism of this judge, I was acting just as any other human being is entitled to act.
After holding me in solitary confinement for 6 days, they officially charged me in court on June 5, 2008. I was then released on bail. My case was fixed for hearing before Judge Kan Ting Chiu on September 08, 2008. Although I had made several requests for my case to be heard sooner so that I can return to my law practice in California, the court simply refused. Two attempts for the court to release my passport to enable me to travel to the US in the interim to take care of business, even though supported by the American Embassy were also ignored.
This meant that I had to remain in Singapore throughout this period which will result in my suffering severe financial harm due to neglecting my practice this entire time of 6 months. I was not able to earn any income from my US practice as well as having to maintain myself to live in Singapore during these months.
Eventually the case came to trial. Judge Kan Ting Chiu was determined to send me to prison. No amount of argument by me in saying that writing a blog post was lawful criticism and a human right, made any difference to him. On the 17th of September 2008, he sentenced me to 3 months imprisonment, a sentence much harsher than even thieves and robbers receive.
On the 20th of November 2008, I was released from prison, allowed to remain in Singapore for 5 days until the 26th of November 2008 when I was permitted to leave Singapore. The Singapore Immigration Department has placed a condition that I am not allowed to enter Singapore again unless I have the written permission of the Singapore Immigration and Customs Authority. This effectively means that I am banned from ever returning to my country of birth.
Since my return to Fremont, California on November 26, 2008, I have been trying to rebuild my law practice which has been shattered. I have also been financially ruined by my forced stay in Singapore for 6 months, from which I am trying to recover.
Despite Lee Kuan Yew's attempts to show Singapore as a democracy, it is far from it. Today, Singaporeans live in mortal fear of their government. The constitution is completely ignored. Singapore Parliament is merely a rubber stamp, the country being run entirely on the dictates of this one man, Lee Kuan Yew. Although the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, the law requires permits to engage in such activity and permits are never granted. With one party rule, the people have no legal means to voice their dissent. Dr. Chee Soon Juan and other activists have engaged in peaceful protests for which they have been repeatedly charged and sent to prison. At this very moment, Singapore human rights activists, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Gandhi Ambalam, Chee Siok Chin and Yap Keng Ho are undergoing a trial for having engaged in a peaceful assembly, one of the many they have suffered.
In Singapore today, there is no free press. Every single newspaper and news media is controlled by the government. The judiciary is entirely politicized and they invariably abuse the law to punish political opponents. The Internal Security Act, giving the government the right to detain people without trial is being used. There are a number of people presently detained in Singapore under this law. The police force is being used as Lee Kuan Yew's private army to arrest detain and charge his political opponents.
Dear President, you have said it is your intention to try to uplift people oppressed under the yoke of dictators. You have said you believe strongly in the right of people to achieve their self determination, to live as men and not slaves. This letter that I write carries the hopes of thousands of Singaporeans yearning to be free, to live as free men and women endowed with the human rights they rightly deserve.
Singapore unlike other countries has no hinterland, no farmland, no place where people can survive without government recognition. It is a concrete island where one has no choice but to submit to Lee's dictates, because inviting the wrath of Lee Kuan Yew would mean being destitute. There are people who are able to emigrate leaving Singapore for a freer life elsewhere. But for the vast majority, leaving Singapore is impossible. They have nowhere else to go. And so they live in submission and fear of Lee Kuan Yew's rule.
You have also said you intend to look into tax havens and money laundering centers where foreigners invest to avoid paying taxes in their own countries. It is very well documented that Singapore banks maintain large investments belonging to Burmese drug lords. The US has placed sanctions against the Burmese government. By Singapore permitting these assets from Burma to remain in Singapore, it is clearly hurting the purpose of the US sanctions. American and European businessmen, in order to avoiding taxes in their own countries also bank their moneys there. I hope your office will look into this and demand that Singapore comply with international standards of financial responsibility and stop profiting from illegal funds.
A free and democratic Singapore is a boon for the US, not a bane. Trade between the US and Singapore will increase, not decrease if Singapore becomes a democracy. Nothing is lost and everything is gained by this.
Even though I am an American citizen, Singapore is dear to my heart. It was the place where I was born. I hope to see Singaporeans proud and free, standing up tall as men and women, not the sheepish lives they live now. Dear President, please do what you can for the people of Singapore. Our hopes ride with you.
Thank you Mr. President.
Gopalan Nair -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Even if Obama did make any comment, the PAP government wouldn't give a shit. They will just indulge in some nationalistic indignation and pretend it never happened.
And appreciate? What have we done? We are a small country, and our actions are relatively local and hardly worth even a mention. For example, no one in the US gives a shit when our PM makes a visit.
Heh yea, they give more respect to the father.
-
i think send the posts to Obama's blackberry is better...
http://news.sg.msn.com/TopStories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2210711Barack Obama has pulled off the first political triumph of his presidency -- he will get to keep his beloved BlackBerry.
At a time of deep economic crisis and turmoil abroad, one of the most burning questions facing the new White House has been the fate of the president's trusty window to the outside world.
Being the world's most powerful man apparently has its advantages because Obama has faced down the objections of Secret Service protectors and government lawyers trying to take away his trusty device.
"The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It's a pretty small group of people."
"The security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate, but to do so effectively and to do so in a way that is protected," Gibbs said.
The spokesman would not say exactly how the president's device had been protected or whether some kind of encryption was being used to prevent the cellular device from being hacked or from giving away his whereabouts.
According to The Atlantic magazine, the president will be using a standard BlackBerry but one equipped with a "super-encryption package" developed by an intelligence agency, probably the National Security Agency.
Gibbs confirmed that any emails sent or received by the president would be subject to the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978, which requires that a record be kept of every White House communication.
Obama's BlackBerry was a fixture on his belt or in his hand on the campaign trail and he has said the phone was a valuable part of a wider strategy to escape the White House fishbowl.
"It's just one tool among a number of tools that I'm trying to use, to break out of the bubble, to make sure that people can still reach me," he told CNN.
"If I'm doing something stupid, somebody in Chicago can send me an email and say, 'What are you doing?'
"I want to be able to have voices, other than the people who are immediately working for me, be able to reach out and send me a message about what's happening in America."
In an op-ed column this week in the Los Angeles Times, John Podesta, who headed Obama's transition team, said allowing him to keep his BlackBerry was important to allow the president to stay in touch with the outside world.
"Without his virtual connection to old friends and trusted confidants beyond the bubble that seals off every president from the people who elected him, he'd be like a caged lion padding restlessly around the West Wing, wondering what's happening on the other side of the iron bars that surround the People's House.
"The president's ability to reach outside his inner circle gives him access to fresh ideas and constructive critics," Podesta said. "As president, it is more important than ever that he remain connected."
-
Poh, someone has posted this earlier, you are a little late. Be prepared that this thread of yours may be deleted by fireice.
-
A hundred bucks says Singapore WILL NOT get invaded by US Marines to "liberate" us or force "regime change."
Any takers?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
A hundred bucks says Singapore WILL NOT get invaded by US Marines to "liberate" us or force "regime change."
Any takers?
No need anything that dramatic. Just have the Treasury Dept declare that they will ban all transactions to Singapore. In one swift swoop, our economy goes kaput.
-
The title to this thread is misleading. I don't see anywhere that Obama would receive the plea, or even acknowledge it for that matter
-
Wow Dr Chee, a very clever use of new media.
-
What would Barak Obama know about Singapore?
Only what his advisors tell him.
And what would his advisors tell him?
-
What would Barak Obama know about Singapore?
Only what his advisors tell him.
And what would his advisors tell him?
-
the attention whores are disgracing Singapore again..
haiz..
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
the attention whores are disgracing Singapore again..
haiz..
We deserve to be disgraced for our stupidty, to be frank.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
While i can agree that Singapore does need to be more democractic and just, i find the idea of "freer" a very subjective term.
What exactly does this "freer" entails? The right to protest in the streets and disable government ministries because the protesters feel as long as they're justified they can do anything?
Granted , there are going to be positive effects in being more free which currently i cannot think of any examples for. But we need to look at the concept of freedom as an idea that is extremely subjected to interpretation by every single individual not as a natural magic bullet that will solve all problems.
Are not the multinational corporations free to express their opinions louder than the average individual? What benefits the corporations' employees and board of directors would not neccesarily benefit the country as a whole.The Americans have already proven that to us.
If we want freedom, we got to understand it's a responsibility not a bloody right.
Is it not ironical in your opening statement that "While i can agree that Singapore does need to be more democractic and just, i find the idea of "freer" a very subjective term" - you will find the idea of "freer" to be a mere subjective term ?
Can Singapore be "more democratic and just" - when the very idea of "freer" is questioned ?
Can the idea of "freer" be subjective when you have made an emphatic statement that "Singapore does need to be more democratic and just" ?
Are you not simply engaging is some kind of extraneous intellectual acrobatics ?
The Constitution statement guarantees that inalienable RIGHT to every Singaporean CITIZEN - regardless of the character traits of any person, why are you redefining the position that is clearly stated ?
If the Constitution had intended otherwise in the manner that you prefer - as a RESPONSIBILITY - surely the Constitution would have defined the perimeters in which such a CITIZEN's RIGHT is to be applied ?
Are you not simply adopting the same principle of arbitrary discretion abused by LKY over the last 50 odd years and subjugating these Constitutional Rights that Singaporeans are entitled to WITHOUT any conditions ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Is it not ironical in your opening statement that "While i can agree that Singapore does need to be more democractic and just, i find the idea of "freer" a very subjective term" - you will find the idea of "freer" to be a mere subjective term ?
Can Singapore be "more democratic and just" - when the very idea of "freer" is questioned ?
Can the idea of "freer" be subjective when you have made an emphatic statement that "Singapore does need to be more democratic and just" ?
Are you not simply engaging is some kind of extraneous intellectual acrobatics ?
The Constitution statement guarantees that inalienable RIGHT to every Singaporean CITIZEN - regardless of the character traits of any person, why are you redefining the position that is clearly stated ?
If the Constitution had intended otherwise in the manner that you prefer - as a RESPONSIBILITY - surely the Constitution would have defined the perimeters in which such a CITIZEN's RIGHT is to be applied ?
Are you not simply adopting the same principle of arbitrary discretion abused by LKY over the last 50 odd years and subjugating these Constitutional Rights that Singaporeans are entitled to WITHOUT any conditions ?
everyone have limit to how much freedom they want.. some are happier when they're freer others not so much. it really is subjective. one man's meat can be the other man's poison.
i personally don't care much about politics as long as they don't interfere in my daily life but you on the other hand obviously want to be "freer".
the same laws that you felt entitling sporeans Constitutional Rights WITHOUT any conditions also sent me to an army camp for 2 years. thats pretty much what i would call conditional and i've even been through the 2 yrs with guys who think ns infringes on their rights, they shouldn't have to be here. they should be free outside but then what about the rest who think ns is an acceptable price for what they have?