Rilek1Corner

Tag: opposition

  • Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

    Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

    Two Workers’ Party members – Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang – crossed swords with Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law, in Parliament on Monday (May 9) over an amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

    The Opposition MPs took issue with Clause 9 in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016, which would see a change to Section 29(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). They argued that the change would make it more prohibitive for individuals to enter into litigation against the Government.

    Previously, the Act stated that: “In any such civil proceedings as are referred to in subsection (2) in which two legal officers appear as advocates and the court certifies for two counsel, costs shall be payable in respect of the services of both such legal officers.”

    Clause 9 replaces the section with: “In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (2), costs are payable in respect of the services of more than two legal officers if the court so certifies.”

    According to the Act, the change is meant to bring the previous laws in line with Order 59, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 871 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.

    THE COURT IS THE SAFEGUARD: INDRANEE RAJAH

    Ms Lim rose to record her reservation about Clause 9, saying: “Ms Indranee mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, the cost claimable is limited to two. So this amendment would actually give an allowance to the court to certify more than two lawyers’ cost being payable.

    “So it is a change to the legal position as far as the GPA is concerned.”

    Ms Indranee said that the intent was to “bring it in line” with what is available to other civil parties.

    Said the Senior Minister of State: “It is not intended to be costs used in an oppressive manner, but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsels if the court really thinks this is an appropriate place to do so.

    “So the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the court.”

    But Ms Lim said that “when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with really an inequality of resources in most case”.

    She added: “The Government, with its legal officers, having the whole Civil Service there – the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation I think is already prohibitive to most people.

    “So my question is why is the Government not able to take a broader view – or a magnanimous view, or perhaps a view from the the accountability standpoint – that we are not going allow costs to be an inhibition, or a prohibitive factor, when a litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government?

    “I’m sure the Government doesn’t need the money, so the question is why do you need to change that provision to allow for more than two lawyers’ costs to be claimed? Why can’t you just limit the Government’s position to two?”

    Ms Indranee she said that ultimately it should be up to the Courts to decide.

    “The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the court can do so. But if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court,” she said.

    “So at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing with respect to the costs. And our Courts in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair,” she said.

    The Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about legal proceedings, added Ms Indranee.

    “When this Government is engaged with litigation – whether it is brought by somebody else, or whether the Government has reason to initiate it – the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it,” she said.

    “It would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think it is fairly and justly incurred, and to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded, and the number of counsel to be taken into account.”

    WILL SOME FEEL INTIMIDATED, ASKS LOW THIA KHIANG

    WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang then asked for a clarification, saying that he wondered if the change will “raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the clause to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government”.

    He asked: “So is it a good thing for Singapore as a society that the people who feel somehow being victimised by the Government, but are intimidated by the costs that you don’t know how much the court is going to decide?

    “The sense of intimidation of Singaporeans does not spell well for the future of Singapore.”

    In response to Mr Low, Ms Indranee reiterated that it is not intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.

    “I’ve said it before, once. I’ve said it before, twice. And I will now say it again a third time: It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone,” said the Senior Minister of State for Law.

    “As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally, and doing so if it thinks it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taken proceedings with respect to the amount of costs that the person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of cost that would be incurred.

    “And it should not be forgotten that if costs are to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government, meaning that that case should not have been brought in the first place.”

     

    Source: ChannelNewsAsia

  • Dr Chee Belum Sedia Undur Diri Dari Politik

    Dr Chee Belum Sedia Undur Diri Dari Politik

    Calon SDP yang juga Setiausaha Agung parti itu, Dr Chee Soon Juan bergiat aktif dalam politik hampir suku abad lamanya.

    Pencalonannya dalam pilihan raya kecil Bukit Batok menandakan kali kelima Dr Chee bertanding untuk memasuki parlimen.

    Sekitar 25 tahun selepas bertanding di Marine Parade – Dr Chee Soon Juan menjadi tokoh terkenal tetapi berkontroversi dalam arena politik Singapura.

    Dr Chee menyertai SDP pada 1992 dan diperkenalkan pengasas parti Chiam See Tong sebagai calon pilihan bagi pilihan raya kecil di Marine Parade.

    PAP bagaimanapun memenangi pilihan raya tersebut dengan 73 peratus undi.

    KERJAYA POLITIK DIPENUHI KONTROVERSI

    Pada 1997, Dr Chee mengambil alih kepimpinan parti kira-kira setahun selepas Encik Chiam meninggalkan parti menyusuli pertikaian dengan Dr Chee dan para anggota SDP yang lain.

    Ada laporan menyatakan Dr Chee menyingkirkan Encik Chiam tetapi itu dinafikan Dr Chee.

    Pada 1997 dan 2001, SDP kalah di MacPherson dan Jurong. Kerjaya politik Dr Chee dipenuhi kontroversi. Dr Chee dipecat dari Universiti Nasional Singapura pada 1993 kerana dituduh menyalahgunakan dana kajian. Tetapi Dr Chee menafikan tuduhan tersebut.

    Dr Chee pernah mengadakan beberapa bantahan awam. Dia juga pernah disaman di mahkamah oleh mendiang Encik Lee Kuan Yew dan Encik Goh Chok Tong berhubung beberapa kenyataan yang dibuat dalam kempen pilihan raya 2001.

    Dr Chee kemudian diisytiharkan muflis selepas gagal membayar ganti rugi.

    Akibatnya Dr Chee tidak layak bertanding dalam dua pilihan raya pada 2006 dan 2011.

    2012 RASMI BEBAS DARI MUFLIS

    Pada 2012, Dr Chee secara rasmi dibebaskan dari muflis dan ini membolehkannya bertanding dalam pilihan raya.

    Tahun lalu, Dr Chee bertanding dalam Pilihan Raya Umum di GRC Holland-Bukit Timah. Dr Chee dan pasukannya bagaimanapun tewas di GRC Holland-Bukit Timah dengan meraih hanya 33 peratus undi.

    Kekalahan demi kekalahan itu nampaknya tidak mengekang Dr Chee daripada terus bertanding.

    “Kami menerimanya, orang ramai membuat keputusan dan hanya yang dapat kita lakukan adalah melihat ke hadapan,” ujar beliau. Nampaknya, Dr Chee tidak mungkin meninggalkan politik dengan segera.

    Source: Berita MediaCorp

  • By-Election The Latest Stop In Political Journey, Says Chee

    By-Election The Latest Stop In Political Journey, Says Chee

    Eight months after contesting his first election in 14 years last September, Dr Chee Soon Juan, 53, finds himself contesting his second.

    While some political pundits had suggested that the Bukit Batok by-election was effectively last chance saloon for Dr Chee and as good an opportunity as it gets for him to enter Parliament, the man himself disagrees — opting to see the latest contest as simply one stop in the ongoing political process.

    “It’s like an MRT station. You come to one stop, it doesn’t end there. You go on. I don’t think it’s ever an end goal in that sense. I’ve always seen it as a journey and not just for me personally — for the party, for the country as well,” said Dr Chee, who has parked himself at the MRT station many mornings and evenings leading up to the Bukit Batok by-election this Saturday, cycled and walked with his team around the Single-Member Constituency, and shaken hands with numerous patrons of the coffee shops there.

    Political analysts have weighed in on what is at stake this time for Dr Chee, who first entered politics in 1992. They said that the by-election offered Dr Chee the best shot at winning a parliamentary seat in his colourful political career so far — due to factors such as the by-election effect and the ignominy of former People’s Action Party Member of Parliament David Ong’s resignation over an alleged extramarital affair.

    Any result lower than 35 per cent would raise questions on his electability, an analyst said.

    In response, Dr Chee pointed to the lack of a democratic system and media freedom here.

    “Let’s put that in context and then we can start talking about electability … We don’t analyse the system first. Before you do that, let’s not start throwing words like you would in a democratic system,” Dr Chee told TODAY in an interview last Saturday.

    When reminded of how opposition parties have made breakthroughs in the current system, Dr Chee called for “even-handed” media coverage and said his team would just have to continue to appeal to voters.

    The tentative and sometimes tetchy relationship between the SDP and the mainstream media came to the fore in the past week as several speakers at its rallies criticised a front-page headline used by Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao after an interview with him, which the newspaper later corrected online.

    SDP central executive committee member Dr Paul Tambyah also disagreed that this by-election spells the best opportunity for Dr Chee to get elected. Many in the opposition believe Bukit Batok SMC was carved out of Jurong Group Representation Constituency in the 2015 General Election because it was a PAP stronghold, said Dr Tambyah.

    Other challenges include what Dr Tambyah called attempts by the ruling party to smear the SDP and Dr Chee, and distortion of statements they made.

    Dr Tambyah — who was part of the SDP Holland-Bukit Timah team with Dr Chee and two others that won 33.4 per cent of the vote last September — also took a longer-term view of the SDP’s efforts to get into Parliament.

    “We hope that by running a clean and fair campaign and focusing on the issues, we have moved the cause of democracy forward so hopefully Dr Chee will be in Parliament, if not this time, perhaps in the next GE,” he said.

    Dr Chee said the response from Bukit Batok residents has been encouraging.

    He has come to know many residents, who are beginning to feel “very comfortable with us around”. But he said: “How can you tell until the final poll comes around (on) Saturday?”

    TODAY tagged along twice when Dr Chee was at Bukit Batok MRT Station and once as he walked around several coffee shops. Some commuters resolutely kept their earphones plugged in and refused to be distracted from their journey home, some politely smiled and accepted the brochures he gave out. Others stopped for a chat, wished him well and requested photos and autographs. One man stuffed a S$50 note into his hands.

    The SDP is trying a more nuanced and gradated approach in reaching out to voters this time around and has covered all the residential blocks in Bukit Batok, said Dr Chee, who has pledged to be a full-time MP.

    “For example, you come across a pro-PAP supporter or Residents’ Committee supporter, you say thank you and if they don’t want to support you, they don’t want to support you,” he said. “For those people who say, ‘I’d like to meet Dr Chee’, (my activists) will let me know and I’ll go visit them.”

    Whatever the outcome on May 7, Dr Chee said he will keep at his cause. “Life is a journey. That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. And change takes persistence, takes perseverance, but we’ll get there,” he said.

     

    Source: TODAY Online

  • ISA Arrests ‘Point To Need To Tighten Immigration’

    ISA Arrests ‘Point To Need To Tighten Immigration’

    The recent detention of eight radicalised Bangladeshis here under the Internal Security Act (ISA) points to the need to tighten the Republic’s immigration policy, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan said on Wednesday (May 4) morning.

    Speaking to reporters after a walkabout in Bukit Batok, where he is vying to become the ward’s Member of Parliament, Dr Chee called on the Government to deal with the problem at its “root cause” by preventing more of such radical elements, which endanger Singapore society, from entering the Republic’s shores.

    He was responding to questions from reporters about the Bangladeshis’ detention under the ISA, which he had spoken against previously on human rights grounds.

    On Tuesday, the Home Affairs Ministry revealed that the eight Bangladeshi workers had formed a terror cell here aimed at bringing their homeland under Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate. It is the second reported case involving radicalised individuals from the Bangladeshi community here.

    Responding, Dr Chee did not mention the SDP’s stance on the ISA, but said the Government has been “lax” in its immigration policy by taking in large numbers of foreigners. “You let in hundreds of thousands, millions … there must be people there who are not properly vetted,” he said.

    The Government must “get it at the root cause” and prevent such situations “even before they come in”, he said, adding that if he was elected, he would raise questions on the vetting process with Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.

    Asked about Dr Chee’s comments, Mr Shanmugam, who was speaking to reporters about the detentions on Wednesday afternoon, said they showed “a lack of understanding of the problem”.

    “So what does Dr Chee suggest? That we say no to all foreign workers? Or we say no to all foreign workers who are Muslim? I think (you) should clarify that. There are tens of thousands of Bangladeshi workers in Singapore, several tens of thousands. They are in our construction sector, working for our town councils, large numbers as cleaners … So what do we do? Send them all back? Who is going to do their jobs?” said Mr Shanmugam.

    “After (the attacks in) Paris, after Jakarta, after all these arrests, they still say abolish the ISA and that all of these are immigration issues … these are serious matters, security issues that require careful consideration and proper thought … We should stop taking cheap political shots and political opportunism.”

    When further queried about its stand on the ISA, SDP central executive committee member Paul Tambyah reiterated the need to address the “root of the problem” and the Government’s “unfettered immigration policy”.

    Meanwhile, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) corrected Dr Chee’s interpretation of employment data during his rally on Tuesday, calling it “alarmist”.

    Dr Chee had said only 100 jobs were created for locals last year. The MOM said the figures he referred to — local employment — did not refer to the total number of new jobs taken by locals.

    Local employment refers to the difference between total number of locals entering jobs and those leaving jobs, for example owing to retirement. They also pointed out that the difference was 700 last year, not 100.

     

    Source: TODAY Online

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Character Applies For Both The Whites And The Reds

    Walid J. Abdullah: Character Applies For Both The Whites And The Reds

    Suddenly, there has been a burst of morality permeating Singapore society. You hear high and mighty proclamations about the importance of ‘character’ by ordinary Singaporeans. ‘Character is most important’; ‘without character one cannot serve as an MP’; ‘one’s character must be assessed to see if one is fit for public office’ etc.

    Undoubtedly, what Dr Chee did about 15 years ago (yes, 15 years, not days or even months) has left a sour taste in many people’s mouths, mine included. I grew up harbouring resentment towards him, because i felt he hindered the growth of the opposition, through that rash act. No doubt, the media made a meal out of it, but the fact remains that he provided the material for them.

    But what truly irks me, and makes me sick to my stomach, is the inconsistency. And double standards. These people who are taking the moral high ground, where were you when, just a while ago, a sitting Member of Parliament was suggesting we fence off foreign workers? Never mind keeping silent; some of these moral policemen (and policewomen) were actually justifying the said MP’s comments!

    Was that statement not reflective of ‘character’? Compare that to Dr Chee chasing former PM Goh: which act is more dangerous to Singapore society? Why was there no angst from these people?

    Now, i am not talking about the supporters of the ruling party who chide Dr Chee, but expressed disappointment at the ‘fencing’ remarks as well. These people, are perfectly entitled to question Chee’s ‘character’. What i cannot stand is those who practise selective outrage; when the politicians they support make mistakes, they keep quiet, or worse, try to make excuses.

    But when it comes to others, they immediately become more Catholic than the Pope, and more Islamic than the Prophet.

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah