Tag: SDP

  • Chee Soon Juan: GE2015 – Could There Have Been Any Other Result?

    Chee Soon Juan: GE2015 – Could There Have Been Any Other Result?

    I wrote in this blog a couple of weeks prior to the last GE that come day-after-polling, the PAP will declare victory and, thereafter, it will be one-party-rule-as-usual. I also pointed out, which I have done countless of times before, that the electoral process in Singapore facilitates one and only one outcome: PAP victory. There can be no other.

    The factors that contributed to the outcome of this past general election have been discussed ad nauseum, but we are no closer to coming to a definitive conclusion of what really made the populace vote the way it did. I do not wish to add to the speculation other than to state the obvious: it was a combination of all of them.

    Rather, I think it would be much more helpful to identify the root motivator, or motivators, of the voting behaviour of the majority of Singaporeans.

    To do that, let me first cite the work of Ellen Lust of Yale University. Essentially, Professor Lust says that “Elections in authoritarian regimes not only fail to push the transition process forward, but tend to strengthen the incumbent regime.”

    She observes that in hegemonic authoritarian systems:

    • “Elections tend to weaken political parties…Parties come to be seen as personalistic cliques, focused on their own interests.
    • Political parties tend to splinter into even weaker offshoots.
    • Elections provide an efficient mechanism for distributing patronage.
    • Opposition elites who win seats become part of the patronage network, providing selective benefits to their constituents.
    • Elections also can help the party in power to co-opt potential counterelites.

    So what does Lust see as a viable option for those who want to bring about a more democratic state? She writes: “Supporters of democracy should thus focus on changing the overall playing field rather than just the electoral process.”

    What playing field, in the Singapore context, are we talking about ? As it turns out, there are not so many things that stack the system in favour of the PAP. No matter how you slice it, three factors emerge:

    • Control of the print and broadcast media
    • Use of state organs for party-political purposes
    • Subjugation of the body charged with the conduct of elections

    The combination of the three will – regardless of the efficacy of the political opposition and the potency of our message – result in the overwhelming electoral victory of the PAP each and every election. For purposes of this essay, I wish to focus on the first factor: media control.

    Democracy isn’t just about voting once every 5 years, it is about having a free media where views of all sides are openly aired and support for them canvassed. In Singapore, however, opposition parties are excluded from meaningful coverage in the period between elections, save for perhaps whenever the PAP decides to criticise us.

    This is a powerful drug that anaesthetises the electorate to the pain that PAP policies inflict and acts as a stimulant for its message especially during elections. Conversely, the obscurantism turns most things the opposition has to offer into inconsequential drivel.

    Pundits and commentators, in their haste to provide “answers” for the PAP’s sterling results, draw conclusions ranging from the PAP’s superior communication skills to the one speech that DPM Tharman made during the hustings to the lack of opposition unity.

    These observations ignore the overarching role that the control of information plays in driving voting behaviour of the majority of Singaporeans. After more than 50 years of the PAP-good, opposition-bad dichotomy, it would indeed be surprising that the national vote turned out any other way.

    Perhaps media consultant Alan Soon, amidst all the faux analyses of the results, came closest to the nub of the matter when he noted: “If journalism is meant to be a service in which we inform and educate society, we’re failing. This country has real issues to contend with and we’re not going to get very far if the media doesn’t appreciate its role in explaining, dissecting and challenging policies.”

    If any good is going to come from the dismal results of this elections, let it be a renewed effort to revamp the way our national media operate in order to level the playing field and provide the Singaporean electorate a proper forum to debate politics and policies and when elections come, the wherewithal to cast an intelligent vote.

    At the heart of this complex issue is the Newspaper Presses and Printing Act (NPPA) which, for all intents and purposes, allows the PAP monopoly of the political narrative in Singapore. Section 11 of the Act, for instance, says that “No person shall…become a substantial shareholder of a newspaper company without first obtaining the approval of the Minister.” This surely cannot be the way the media in Singapore function in the knowledge-driven era.

    We have been working hard, very hard. Now let us start working smart. As long as we do not address the fundamentals that drive the political system – fundamentals that have produced the same ineluctable results even after half-a-century of elections in Singapore – the opposition will be forever consigned to the inane exercise of chasing our tails.

    This is an excerpt of my presentation at the SDP Post-GE2015 Forum: The Way Forward held on 19 September 2015.

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • Menjadikannya Isu Hijab Satu Isu Pilihan Raya Boleh Jejas Proses Huraian

    Menjadikannya Isu Hijab Satu Isu Pilihan Raya Boleh Jejas Proses Huraian

    SAYA menyaksikan beberapa rapat Pilihan Raya Umum dan dapati ramai ahli Melayu calon pembangkang menyentuh tentang isu hijab.

    Malang sekali tiada satu pun daripada mereka yang ada cara untuk menyelesaikan isu tersebut melainkan mereka akan menimbulkan isu itu jika dipilih.

    Tetapi isu sebenar ialah dengan memilih untuk menjadikan isu hijab sebagai satu isu di rapat Pilihan Raya Umum, ahli calon pembangkang hanya menjadikan masyarakat kita lebih payah melakar penyelesaian terhadap isu tersebut dalam jangka masa pendek ini.

    Jika kita sudah hampir untuk mendapatkan agar hijab dapat dipakai di tempat kerja sebelum pilihan raya umum, dengan menjadikan isu hijab sebagai isu pilihan raya umum, ia sudah semestinya menjadikannya lebih sukar.

    Malangnya ahli calon pembangkang telah menggunakan isu ini sebagai isu pilihan raya.

    Maka mereka telah membuat lebih banyak ketidakselesaan dalam kalangan masyarakat bukan Islam.

    Setelah pilihan raya berakhir isu ini boleh menyebabkan jurang yang lebih jauh di antara masyarakat kita dan rakyat Singapura yang lain.

    ABDUL KADIR ABDUL RAHMAN

     

    Source: http://beritaharian.sg

  • PAP Vs SDP – The Incumbent’s Weakest Link

    PAP Vs SDP – The Incumbent’s Weakest Link

    Ever since it kick-started its general election campaign in January this year, the Singapore Democratic Party has made it a point to pack its calendar with something every month. As a publicity campaign, it has surely drawn a lot of attention, but also the negative kind from the ruling People’s Action Party.

    The name-calling and character assassination that secretary-general Chee Soon Juan suffered in his time as a politician has only intensified, as PAP politicians spared no time in launching fresh attacks against him. The media, too, was eager to report on these attacks.

    The biggest losers, however, would be citizens, who hardly have any chance to hear the SDP on its entire slate of policy proposals – the most wide-ranging and comprehensive by far among any political party.

    Did such efforts help to drown out the SDP? The reverse might be true. Crowd sizes and the vocal support at the rallies, not to mention the long queue of rally-goers for Chee to sign the books they purchased, suggests that SDP’s traction has increased, either due to Chee’s personal brand, or what the party has been rolling out and engaging residents with in walkabouts.

    The question now is whether the SDP would be able to build upon its success at GE2011 – although not winning any seats, the party scored the highest in terms of vote percentage increase since the last election – or whether the refreshed attacks might blunt its voter appeal compared to other opposition parties, as the real risk for this GE could be political oblivion.

    Does SDP have the credible slate of candidates it needs to face off against PAP? Will the beleaguered reputation of Chee cause more harm than good for the party? Will its many policy proposals finally fall on deaf ears if it cannot produce any Members of Parliament to have them discussed in the House?

    New blood, new attitude

    Chan Chun Sing Chee Soon JuanThe launch event for SDP’s “Your Voice in Parliament” campaign went out with a bang in January 2015, and it has surely shook the PAP, particularly with the side announcement that it was keen to contest Tanjong Pagar GRC. Hence, it was hardly surprising that the first blood drawn for GE2015 was by Tanjong Pagar incumbent Chan Chun Sing, who went on national media tocall Chee a political failure.

    But Chee’s initial reaction was surprisingly measured, if not downright humbling. “I want to tell my fellow Singaporeans, especially students, that we must not be afraid to fail. It is from our failures that we learn and become better persons and go on to achieve great things.” Such words speak of a man with great fortitude, and solidifies the SDP’s brand and goals.

    Chee, it seems, have found the right public relations mix to rebuild his battered image as an opposition mad man, caused by his ideals (which were often perceived or painted to be extremist) and actions (hunger strikes and shouting at then PM Goh Chok Tong during walkabouts).

    To add to that, Chee seems to have found a more credible and measured slate of candidates to run, including Paul Tambyah, Chong Wai Fung, John Tan, Bryan Lim, and Jaslyn Go. It would appear that SDP is eager to get on a more professional footing, contrary to the “rabble-rouser” image that it has been smeared with. In particular, Dr Paul Tambyah comes across as possibly the most distinguished among opposition candidates this GE. His demeanor – as someone who cares for the people, knows exactly what he says and will not pull punches to say it – pinpoints exactly what a constructive opposition should really be about.

    Chee Soon Juan and Lawrence Wong (image - CNA)
    Chee Soon Juan and Lawrence Wong (image – CNA)

    The PAP, however, has been less than admirable in how it approached SDP. The incumbent has either written SDP off as irrelevant or treats Chee like a convenient punching bag, as the volleys of insults filled media space. Following Chan, Lawrence Wong exploited a live broadcast to attack Chee’s character by dredging us the latter’s fumble with figures in his Parliamentary select committee speech. Chee’s opponent in Holland Bukit Timah GRC, Vivian Balakrishnan, also attacked the SDP’s policies as “tax and spend” programmes that would turn Singapore into Greece. Balakrishnan’s GRC team mate Sim Ann also slammed Chee for his earlier dispute with Singapore People’s Party’s Chiam See Tong, and recently chastised Chee as someone who likes to “chut pattern”.

    Chee, again, responded to Wong with class, reminding the PAP “not to indulge in the destructive politics of old” and instead re-focused the debate back to the SDP’s proposals and how it has raised issue with government policies. And thus far, he seems intent on ignoring Sim’s frivolity.

    Similarly, Chee’s response to Balakrishnan was equally focused, if not a lot more hard-hitting, going back to policy issues. Chee has demonstrated an eagerness to focus on policy issues rather than take broad swipes, as what the PAP has done. What the PAP has not done in making GE2015 a clean fight, SDP has done by focusing on the issues that matter.

    Sound policies, credible party?

    Prof Paul [Photo: Yee Kai, TOC]
    Prof Paul Tambyah [Photo: Yee Kai, TOC]

    In fact, it is the SDP’s focus on public policy that sets it apart from other opposition parties, and truly gives the PAP a run for its money. Its comprehensive slate of policy proposals covers issues ranging from its most widely publicised national healthcare plan to the more municipal town council plan, its counter to the Population White Paper to a vision for a progressive economyfor Singapore launched earlier this year.

    The direction is sound. SDP is projecting itself as a credible alternative, giving voters a reason to vote for the party, not just against the incumbent, as Chee often says. These policies, previously nothing more than thorns in the side of the PAP, are starting to turn into festering wounds, as the incumbent appears to be struggling to find proper counters to the proposals other than “cautions” and “tax and spend” statements.

    SDP’s policy papers, plotted out over the past few years, have highlighted precisely how inadequately the PAP has prepared for this campaign, as the PAP has thus far done little to demonstrate its policy direction for the future, beyond its current “trust us and we will sort it out later” mantra. The PAP comes across as a lumbering machine slow to respond to the concerns of citizens, while the SDP has expressed connection and determination to chart a way forward.

    Chong Wai Fung and Jaslyn Go
    Chong Wai Fung and Jaslyn Go

    To note, SDP’s proposals are not watertight, and Chee has also indicated so himself at his policy launches. He has maintained that he welcomes criticism and debate on SDP’s proposals, if only to make them better at answering the needs of Singaporeans. This open and consultative approach bodes well, and would likely serve as the SDP’s election promise to citizens.

    A drop of red in a sea of white and blue?

    The SDP has thus far projected itself as a credible alternative to Singapore politics, if not public policy. It has gamely taken up the challenge to put ideas to paper, with the hope that citizens would put faith in turning those ideas into reality. Chee, as party leader, has done a lot more to restore his public image, and if the response of the audience to his recent rally speechesis anything to go by, Singaporeans are starting to get the sense that he is not the crazed and deceitful bag of political cunning that he has been painted to be.

    It was also apparent at rallies that Singaporeans are listening more to the SDP’s policy proposals, finding resonance with the ideas and looking beyond the far-left, human-rights-or-nothing-else mandates that they were made out to be (in reality, they never were – you can never divorce social and economic progress from a firm grounding in human rights).

    201509072012135Would it be enough to secure Chee and the SDP a place in Parliament? While the likes of Dr Paul Tambyah and Chong Wai Fung are immediately electable, we should also not discount Chee as a potent force whose support from the people has only grown in past years. Only time will tell if he will be seen in a different light from yesteryears, and secure the people’s trust.

    Nevertheless, as we edge closer to polling day, the SDP is turning out to be the PAP’s weakest link. In the face of uncertain times and lacklustre policy direction, the SDP is shaping up to be the party that many want the PAP to be, but for some reason never found the courage to be. And courage would be Chee’s and the SDP’s greatest ally this week.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Meet SDP’s Paul Anantharajah Tambyah

    Meet SDP’s Paul Anantharajah Tambyah

    It is parliamentary election season in Singapore now and there are several firsts this round. The most significant to me personally are that I will finally get a chance to vote, and that there is an infectious diseases physician contesting this time as a candidate for theSingapore Democratic Party (SDP), one of the older opposition political parties in Singapore.

    Professor Paul Tambyah is famous in medical and healthcare circles, although perhaps less well known to the man or woman in the street. He was the founding head of infectious diseases at the National University Hospital, and has won more awardsthan I can count. He is regularly invited to give lectures at international conferences, and sits on a huge number of ministry (not just MOH) committees, lending his insights and experience to improve Singapore.

    I have the privilege of working under, and then with him, for a good number of years on both medical and other matters. His intelligence is quite evident, and is combined with great energy and a deep sense of integrity. Less well known is his compassion, which I have witnessed exhibited to medical students and patients. Unlike many others, he still maintains a faith in Singapore, and a willingness to freely contribute his time and energy to Singapore that is striking. There is no profit – personal or otherwise – that comes from being associated with the opposition in Singapore, as many locals know.

    He had kindly agreed to answer some questions for this blog, taking time out of his hectic campaign schedule (I guess we will find out if he will command as many “eyeballs” as Group B streptococcus and raw fish!). I have copied his email answers below:

    • 1. Why did you – a prominent infectious diseases clinician, tenured professor of medicine, well-respected researcher, and a happily married man – decide to get involved in politics in Singapore?

    The main reason was the frustration with the healthcare financing system in place in our public hospitals. Many doctors and nurses feel the same. I have tried all the conventional approaches including speaking up at various feedback sessions etc. but to no avail. Eventually I realised that the only way to get answers on important questions is to get into parliament. One of my heroes Rudolf Virchow did the same – and he was contending withBismarck the Iron Chancellor!

    • 2. Many of your colleagues are concerned about your being in an opposition party. That you may suffer job repercussions, loss of career opportunities, and not be awarded further research grants post GE-2015. What do you say to that?

    I think that question was definitively answered when I was promoted to full professor with tenure in 2013 after “coming out” at the SDP boat quay rally in 2011. The knuckleduster era is truly over and Singapore politics is fortunately entering what was called the “new normal”

    • 3. How did you persuade your wife and family to let you campaign?

    It was hard. They were very worried about repercussions – my parents knew Dr. Lim Hock Siew and Dr. Beatrice Chen very well and obviously 20 years of detention without trial was a scary spectre.
    I think that the realisation that with social media, those kinds of things will never happen again hopefully helped reassure them. My wife knows that she cannot change my mind once my mind is made up :-) .

    • 4. Is it safe for your medical or infectious diseases colleagues to be seen drinking tea with you from now until mid-September? Lightning seems drawn to those who wear red, it is said…

    Hopefully not any more. Many doctors and nurses have been spotted at rallies and so far, all are well!

    • 5. What 3 things do your medical colleagues not know about you?

    1) that I have a second edition of Osler’s Principles and Practices of Medicine from around 1900.

    2) that I cannot drink coffee after 3pm.

    3) that I was once one of the editors of Sintercom – the Singapore Internet Community (that was) shut down before the 2001 elections.

    • 6. What is your favourite hawker food and is it really healthy to eat orh luak (what are the risks of hepatitis or food poisoning)?

    There are significant norovirus and Vibrio risks from any oyster dish. I like nasi briyani done local style with pineapple salad

    • 7. Why should people vote for someone like you – who hails from another ivory tower (i.e. university)?

    I like to think that my general medicine duties bring me back down to “the ground”. My mother’s favourite quotation is from Proverbs 31 where she talks about being the “voice of the voiceless” in speaking up for the marginalised who are often sidelined. I hope that I can be part of that voice in Parliament.

    Source: MIPHIDIC – Personal infectious diseases blog, focusing in particular on Singapore, antimicrobial resistance, outbreaks, and (occasionally) chess.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Chee Soon Juan – Behind The Man

    Chee Soon Juan – Behind The Man

    We wonder why Dr Chee is so desperate for Singaporeans to forget his past. What does the man have to hide? This is the strange journey of Chee Soon Juan’s rise to the top of SDP.

    March 1993
    “Varsity sacks SDP’s Dr Chee from his teaching position”
    Straits Times 31 March 1993
    Fired by NUS for misappropriation of funds and misconduct
    “The university accused Chee of using Singapore $226 (US$137) from its research grant to send his wife’s academic papers by courier service to a U.S. university.”
    –  Reuters News, 31 March 1993Maintained no wrong-doing and was fully justified in the use of funds
    “He maintained yesterday that he had done no wrong. “I do not accept and will counter whatever reason the university may have for my termination,” he said.
    –  Business Times, 31 March 1993 
    April 1993
    “SDP voices support for sacked lecturer Dr Chee”
    Straits Times, 2 April 1993 “Chee Soon Juan to go on hunger strike to protest sacking”
    Straits Times, 2 April 1993

    “Sacked Singapore lecturer sued for defamation.”
    – Reuters News, 24 April 1993

    SDP party Secretary-General Chiam See Tong signed off on a statement defending Chee“Calling for Dr Chee’s reinstatement, the SDP said it had complete confidence in his integrity and rejected allegations that his conduct was less than honest or that there was any deception on his part.”
    South China Morning Post, 3 April 1993

     Chee caught taping conversation and denying it
    “The NUS Head of Department of Social Work and Psychology disclosed that during a meeting on Dec 7 last year, the sacked neuropsychology lecturer secretly recorded their conversation.

    And he had lied when he denied doing so after Dr Vasoo noticed the tape-recorder and confronted him about it.”
    Straits Times, 3 April 1993

     Chee admits to taping conversation

    “When contacted last night, Dr Chee admitted that he had tried taping the Dec 7 conversation. He did it to protect himself against possible future action to throw him out of his job, he said.”
    Straits Times, 3 April 1993

    Staged a hunger strike to protest situation

    “Chee Soon Juan last night said he was going on a hunger strike from 6am today to protest against his dismissal from the National University of Singapore.”
     – Straits Times, 5 April 1993

     Call by public for Chee to take legal action against NUS

    “There is a big question mark over why Dr Chee refuses to challenge the university’s action in court. Does he not have faith in the system in which he wants to be a player?”
    Straits Times, 7 April 1993

    “If he feels so strongly that he was wrongfully dismissed, why can’t he take legal action against his employer? He should show the public some facts.”
    Straits Times, 8 April 1993

    Chee will not take legal action against NUS

    “”I will not go to the courts and that is as far as I can say.”
    Straits Times, 5 April 1993

     Chiam See Tong called for Chee to stop hunger strike
    “SDP secretary general Chiam See Tong said on Monday night that the party fully supported Chee in what had been a personal decision, but believed his point had been made.”
    Reuters News, 6 April 1993

     Chee drinks glucose water while on hunger strike
    “He had said he would take only plain water when he began his protest on Monday. He began taking water with glucose yesterday, but denied emphatically that it meant that he was taking a source of food with his drinks.”
    Straits Times, 7 April 1993

     Chee faces defamation lawsuits

    “Chee Soon Juan, 30, assistant secretary general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), said he had received a letter from lawyers for S Vasoo, his former department head at the National University of Singapore (NUS), claiming defamation and seeking a public apology and damages.”
    Reuters News, 24 April 1993

    May 1993
    Chiam to represent Chee in suit“LAWYER and Singapore Democratic Party leader Chiam See Tong will represent his party colleague, Dr Chee Soon Juan, in a defamation suit.”
    Straits Times, 2 May 1993
    June 1993
    “Chiam quit after CEC vetoed censure move”
    – Straits Times, 19 June 1993
    Chee took over Chiam to become Secretary-General of SDP“The statement came a day after Mr Chiam had revealed that the CEC had blocked him on many issues and that the differences had remained unresolved for some time now.

    He resigned as the party’s leader during a CEC meeting on May 17, when he was out-voted on a motion by him to censure Dr Chee for going on a hunger strike.”
    Straits Times, 28 June 1993

     Chiam seeks to be discharged from being Chee’s lawyer

    MR CHIAM See Tong no longer wants to represent fellow party member Dr Chee Soon Juan in the two defamation suits filed against the sacked university lecturer.”
    Straits Times, 30 June 1993

    July 1993
    “Chiam criticises Dr Chee for use of research funds for wife’s thesis”– Straits Times, 17 July 1993
    Chiam criticises Chee“MR CHIAM See Tong has accused Dr Chee Soon Juan of usurping his post in the party and challenged him to resign if he really had not sought to lead it.”
    Straits Times, 3 July 1993

     Chiam cricitises Chee for decisions on research funds and hunger strike

    “MR CHIAM See Tong, in a reversal of his earlier position, yesterday criticised his former party deputy, Dr Chee Soon Juan, for using his university research funds to send his wife’s PhD thesis to an American university.

    He said that if he were Dr Chee, he would have checked with the university first before using the money.”
    Straits Times, 17 July 1993

    “Mr Chiam slammed the hunger strike as something that should not have been carried out, as hunger strikes had little place in modern Singapore. Many members of the public had approached him to criticise Dr Chee’s move as “stupid” and “childish”, he added.”
    Straits Times, 17 July 1993

     Chee no longer assistant to Chiam
    “DR CHEE Soon Juan is no longer serving Mr Chiam See Tong as his parliamentary legislative assistant (LA).

    A Parliament spokesman yesterday confirmed that this took effect on July 1.

    It is not known whether the Potong Pasir MP, Mr Chiam, terminated Dr Chee’s services or whether Dr Chee tendered his resignation.” – Straits Times, 23 July 1993

    August 1993
    “SDP wants Chiam stripped of ‘unofficial leader’ title” – Straits Times, 3 August 1993
    Chee leads SDP to take disciplinary action against Chiam
    “THE Singapore Democratic Party’s collective leadership has asked Parliament to consider stripping its former chief Chiam See Tong of the title “unofficial leader of the opposition”.”
    Straits Times, 3 August 1993“The CEC is also planning to take disciplinary action against Mr Chiam, acting secretary-general Chee Soon Juan confirmed yesterday.”
    Straits Times, 3 August 1993

     

    SDP holds disciplinary inquiry
    “Following the disciplinary action, the CEC can either decide to demote, suspend or sack Mr Chiam.

    Under the party’s constitution, if Mr Chiam is sacked from the party, he loses his parliamentary seat of Potong Pasir.”
    Straits Times, 7 August 1993

     

    SDP sacks Chiam
    “Singapore’s longest-serving opposition member of parliament, Chiam See Tong, has been expelled from the party he founded for breaching discipline and refusing to accept collective leadership, party officials said on Saturday.

    Officials of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) said its Central Executive Council (CEC) had expelled Chiam, the party’s former secretary-general, on Friday.”
    Reuters News, 21 August 1993

     

    Chiam does not accept sacking decision
    “”The CEC has no legal authority to sack me from the party while the authority of the leadership is being questioned by the cadres,” said Mr Chiam, who resigned as party chief in May after a squabble with CEC members, and has since criticised the leaders in public.”
    Business Times, 21 August 1993

     

    Chiam wins court order to keep seat in parliament for now
    “CHIAM SEE TONG yesterday successfully obtained a court order against the Singapore Democratic Party’s central executive committee (CEC), in effect freezing the party sacking he received last Friday and thereby keeping his seat in Parliament.”
    Business Times, 26 August 1993

     

    27 cadre members elect Chiam as head of new ‘CEC’

    “TWENTY-SEVEN cadre members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) members voted last night at a special meeting to dissolve the party’s “collective leadership” and to elect a new CEC with Mr Chiam See Tong as its chairman.

    In a dramatic turn of events, they also passed a unanimous resolution to “retract” Mr Chiam’s expulsion from the party.”
    Straits Times, 29 August 1993

    September 1993
    “COURT ORDER AGAINST CHIAM.”
    – Business Times, 1 September 1993
    “Chiam’s SDP suit to be heard in November”
    – Straits Times, 9 September 1993
    Chee leads court order against ChiamSINGAPORE Democratic Party Acting Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan said yesterday the party had obtained a temporary court order restraining Chiam See Tong, Sin Kek Tong and nine other persons from “pretending” to be the SDP chairman, secretary-general and central executive committee members.”
    Business Times, 1 September 1993

    Chiam challenges explusion from SDP
    “THE High Court has set aside five days, from Nov 15, to hear Mr Chiam See Tong’s legal suit challenging his expulsion from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).”
    Straits Times, 9 September 1993

    December 1993
    “Singapore opposition MP’s expulsion illegal – court.”
    – Reuters News, 10 December 1993
    Chiam keeps parlimentary seat
    “SINGAPORE, Dec 10 (Reuters) – The High Court ruled on Friday that the                 expulsion of Singapore’s longest-serving opposition member of parliament, Chiam See Tong, from his own party in August was illegal and invalid.The ruling allows Chiam to keep his parliamentary seat.”
    – Reuters News, 10 December 1993
    January 1994
    “SDP told by landlord to quit premises”Straits Times 20 January 1994
    Despite rental arrears, Chee Soon Juan claims eviction is a political matter“Asked if he knew of the rental arrears, Dr Chee said no, but added: “In the confusion of what has been happening in the party lately, the administration has been a bit confused.”

    He also said that the move to evict the party did not come as a surprise to him as the landlord had previously expressed reservations about renting the premises to an opposition party.
    –  Straits Times, 20 January 1994

    February 1994
    “SDP politicising eviction issue, says landlord”
    –  Straits Times, 3 February 1994 “Chee abandons his defence in defamation suit”
    –  Straits Times, 18 February 1994

    SDP told to pay Chiam $33,948, or 1/3 of costs”
    –  Straits Times, 23 February 1994

    Landlord claims Chee is policising eviction issue“I do not agree with and dislike the SDP for ‘politicising’ the whole matter when the simple truth of the matter is that they had failed to pay rent for two months. I feel that SDP is using the matter and me to elicit whatever little political sympathy…”
    –  Straits Times, 3 February 1994

    Chee drops defence in defamation suit

    “OPPOSITION politician Chee Soon Juan has abandoned his defence in a                 defamation suit brought against him by his former boss and an MP for                 Tanjong Pagar GRC, Dr S. Vasoo.

    His decision to do so is, in effect, an admission that he has defamed Dr Vasoo.”
    –  Straits Times, 18 February 1994

    SDP to pay costs to Chiam
    “THE High Court yesterday fixed the costs in Mr Chiam See Tong’s recent   successful suit against the Singapore Democratic Party at $101,845,                 including disbursements.”
    –  Straits Times, 23 February 1994

    April 1994
    “Singapore opposition politician fined for libel.”– Reuters News, 15 April 1994
    Chee to pay fines for defamation “THE High Court yesterday awarded Dr S. Vasoo $210,000 in damages in                 his defamation suit against Dr Chee Soon Juan over remarks made by the latter after Parliament had debated his sacking by the National University of Singapore last year.”
    – Straits Times, 16 April 1994

     

    Do you trust him enough to empower him to be your voice in parliament?

     

    Source: https://thoughtsofrealsingaporeans.wordpress.com