Repost of donoghue's article from Sammyboy forum.Here is a repost from Sammyboy forum.
Written by donoghue.
Sorry, but I can't believe anyone is actually falling for this media tripe.
Please bear with me. This is a very long post but I hope my point comes across.
To anyone who actually believes that James Gomez is dishonest and a liar etc.. I suggest that you attend the WP rallies and listen to what they have to say, instead of relying on the media for information.The Defamation Suit Trap
Please do remember that this is the media ranked 140th out of 167 in the world.
I have followed every election keely since 1997 and I have also read extensively about the incidents in 1988 with regards to Francis Seow.
While I am not so foolish as to take what the opposition says at face value, I urge everyone here not to do the same for the PAP.
Read factual accounts, based on past trends and make your own judgement.
To me, it is clear what the PAP is trying to do.
They are trying to round on Gomez and ass****nate his character. [Me: Sorry huh, I also scare defamation suit.]
He is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.
Watch what happens.
It is perfectly conceivable now that he says "I am not the liar, Wong Kan Seng is the liar" and I assure you that defamation suits galore will immediately start pouring in.
This is based on the "doctrine of innuendo" that the Singapore courts have evolved, to which there is completely no objective test. I have provided 3 examples of precedents for this:
1. Tang Liang Hong
In 1997, they labelled Tang Liang Hong "a dangerous man", a "racist", "Chinese chauvinist" etc, allegations which were all untrue.2. J.B. Jeyaretnam
The fact is that Teo Chee Hean had heard Tang speak at a dinner function in 1994, where the latter urged more members from the Chinese community to step forward, as the number of English educated in the Cabinet was disproportionate to their actual number in society.
Strange then that they waited 3 years to bring this up. Just like Inderjit Singh in this case, Teo was the 'whistle blower' whose intention was to warn Singaporeans of this so-called dangerous man.
Tang refuted their claims by calling them 'lies', and this invited 13 defamation suits, with damages totalling some $6+ million, because this implied 'by innuendo' that the Ministers were morally bereft, dishonest and therefore unfit for office.
Tang's assets were frozen BEFORE the court had reached a verdict, and his wife (who had nothing to do with it at all) was made a co-defendant in the case.
At a rally during the same election, J.B. Jeyaretnam held up a police report which Tang had made against the PAP leaders for slandering him and tarnishing his reputation.3. Chee Soon Juan
Police reports are supposed to be confidential.
However, Wong Kan Seng retrieved the police report (so much for the separation of powers) and passed it on to Lee Kuan Yew, who released it to the press.
Then 13 PAP leaders sued both Tang and Jeyaretnam for defaming them, by insinuating that the leaders were guilty of a criminal offence and therefore unfit for office.
Jeyaretnam was also sued for saying "I have a police report which Mr Tang has made against Mr Goh Chok Tong.." because this was implying that Goh was a criminal and therefore unfit for office.
In the first instance, the court awarded "derisory damages" to Goh because it held that the lawsuit had been brought frivolously.
"Derisory damages" amounted to $20,000 - hardly "derisory". This was largely due to Goh admitting, under cross examination from Charles Gray QC (now Mr Justice Gray) that he had had "an excellent year", in contrast to his claims in his affidavit that his reputation, both locally and internationally, had been severely impugned by Jeyaretnam's words.
Interesting then that the trial judge, Rajendran J, was subsequently removed, and Mr Justice Gray is now barred from appearing as counsel in Singapore courts because he is a person of 'questionable moral character'.
Goh appealed against the judgement of Rajendran J on the basis that the damages awarded were "manifestly inadequate", and the Court of Appeal duly increased the sum ten-fold, to $200,000. Jeyaretnam, who had already paid off millions in damages, still remains an undischarged bankrupt to this day.
During the 2001 elections, Chee Soon Juan asked Goh Chok Tong during a community walkabout, using a loudhailer, "Prime Minister, where is the money?"(** - see below)
This was held to be an insinuation that Goh was corrupt, dishonest and unfit for office.
Duly, Chee was made to pay $500,000 in damages, and, as the court held in a 'summary judgement' earlier this year, was subsequently made a bankrupt.
How convenient that the elections were to be held this year, eh?
Note, I am by NO MEANS a supporter of Chee Soon Juan, I think he is a completely inept politician and woe betide his foolish constituents if ever he is elected into Parliament.
But from a strictly legal point of view, this absurd doctrine that the Singapore courts have evolved, is certainly a 'world first' - is this what they mean when they say 'Uniquely Singapore'?**
But that notwithstanding, can you not notice the trend here?
I am not anti-PAP in my personal political outlook, but I believe that their politics of s***der and character as****nation are most unbecoming of a Government who has accomplished so much. [Me: Sorry again, I scare defamation suits.]
There is no doubt in my mind that Wong Kan Seng, Lee Kuan Yew and George Yeo et al are trying to bait Gomez into making one of those "implicitly" defamatory remarks so that they can destroy him once and for all, because thus far, all of the Workers' Party leaders have been very astute in terms of making their public comments.
What good is Lee's "dare" to Gomez to sue him, when it is unequivocally clear that Lee effectively o**s the courts? [Me: Paiseh, I still scare of defamation suits.]
The incident involving the Cheng San polling centres in 1997 and then-AG Chan Sek Keong has been given sufficient consideration in another thread, and shall not be discussed further.
Wong Kan Seng noted that Gomez's apology "had been drafted by a lawyer" [Me: Miss Sylvia Lim and Mr Chia Ti Lik are lawyers.] and was therefore "insincere".
He means that Gomez's apology is overly tactful, and as a result, the PAP has little room with which to rub further salt in his wounds. I believe Gomez has, given the cirumstances, acted very prudently in doing so.
Now, they are trying to bait Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang.
If you read their latest response, again they have been very careful. Low merely says that he never planned to field Gomez in Ang Mo Kio. He never expressly accused anyone of lying, nor did he even go so far as to say that "what the PAP says is untrue".
What else do you expect him to do, with the threat of the cripping defamation suits loomimg over his head?
Refusal to Engage Policy Points
It is also telling that the PAP has steadfastly refused to debate the WP's policy points.Question of Intention
They refuted the WP's manifesto saying it was "dangerous" but without giving any specific details of why this would be so, save the same old rhetorical arguments as to why GRCs are important, why government-led unions are important.
In fact, in response to WP's suggestion that the PAP gets out of the unions, Lee Hsien Loong merely gave examples of other parties in other countries that are linked to the unions, and took a humourous jibe at the fact that the WP was not befitting of its name "Workers' Party".
They also did not respond to Perry Tong's points about healthcare, I have had the privilege of listening to sound clips of his speech, and I think they are very sound policy suggestions.
They said that the policy of free healthcare has been proven to be disastrous overseas due to long queues (I presume they are referring to the NHS, and they are right) but that was never Perry Tong's point.
They failed to respond to his suggestions to lower GST on medical supplies and to set up a medicine manufacturing hub in Singapore to both lower the costs of medicine and to create more jobs.
And they repeatedly accuse the WP of failing to suggest ways to create more jobs.
Their response to other points in relation to public transport have also been dealt with only in passing, in a dismissive manner rather than substantively.
Unsurprisingly, the proposals made by Perry Tong (who is a Berkeley grad and a management consultant) and Tan Wui-Hua (who is CFO of a billion dollar company) have been given almost no airtime, with the media instead choosing to focus on the Gomez "scandal".