Can you spot the difference?

From the Straits Times by Li Xueying (read somewhere online but can't find it now) and Legal News Archive states that there is an ongoing probe into how court recordings landed on SDP website.

Right. I don't think anyone denies the fact that if the parties had signed a written agreement, then they should not publish. But if they had not, what's the investigation about? To bring fear into people who are publishing online? Anyway I believe it was an observer who published them. Did the person sign such a document?

I think it's better for Straits Times to come out and publish all that had happened so people like me don't get one-sided views (albeit SDP's). C'mon it's such a publicised affair in Singapore and all you have are (poorly-written) stories from people like Chua Lee Hoong (whom I think had just shot herself in the foot)?

Mayhaps 146th position seems fitting.

---
The law article extract reads:

"According to lawyers, parties involved in a suit at the High Court can apply for copies of the official recording, for a fee, to help them prepare their arguments for the next day.

They have to sign a written agreement 'not to reproduce or transmit in any form or by any means, any material contained in the transcript or on any audio record supplied to us'.

Parties are not allowed to have their own recorders in court. Neither are observers or journalists allowed to (I think it refers to recording media). " (bold italics mine)

and here I have SDP's version of the drama in the courtroom:

"One, halfway through a session on the first day (26 May), a group of men (7-8 of them) barged in and without so much as acknowledging the Judge took up positions around the courtroom. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was then ushered in. Dr Chee asked the Judge whether these people could identify themselves and to state the reasons for their presence. Mr Davinder Singh, the plaintiffs' counsel, had not applied for permission for these persons to be present.

In addition, one of Drew & Napier's partners, Mr Hri Kumar who is also a PAP MP, was seated beside Mr Lee Kuan Yew in courtroom. Mr Kumar was not involved in the case. His only function seemed to be to keep the Minister Mentor company. Again, no permission was sought for his presence and Judge Ang did not ask who Mr Kumar was and what he was doing in her courtroom. " (bold italics mine)

Question: Why aren't these 'people' thrown out of court? Is it different strokes for different folks?

Hmmm...

Interesting insight into .sg journalism

Nothing much to summarise about the article links. They are very good reads about the state of Singapore journalism although these articles dated quite a few years back. The shocking thing is these articles already foresaw the direction .sg journalism will go back then. Scary.

Read it for yourself here and also here.

Another interesting read here from the Australian (albeit an old post).

---
Trying, trying very hard to update my blog with pictures but no avail.

Been busy whacking a free online and addictive game called Hero Online. Doesn't need much CPU power and memory but the graphics, sounds, online community and quests are pretty good (considering it's free!). Fair bit of grinding expected but all in all, a good game at 8/10.

Wasted potential by Chua Lee Hoong

I chuckled at the absurdity of this Singapore Straits Times article penned by Chua Lee Hoong (THINKING ALOUD - The squandered potential of Chee Soon Juan).

Linked the article from another blogsite as I have to subscribe to ST to get the article. *mutters*

Is it because she has never seen CSJ 'grilling' our beloved MM and PM? If you read the transcript post below, I thought CSJ was pretty prepared, sharp and knowledgable. Imagine the stress he has to go through in defending himself, and also in knowledge of the few supporters he has. He's like an egg smashing against a wall.

Yet in spite of the challenges, I think he handled himself well. In fact, my respect for him has gone up a notch.

What was she thinking again? First she flames the bloggers in a previous article for them being critical of the government's handling of the Mas Selamat saga. Now she states CSJ is wasting his potential.

Is she advocating that one has to join PAP in order to be considered using his potential well? Does one has to align himself with the idealogy of the incumbent party to be potentially useful? Then people like Martin Luther King would be considered wasting his time and potential.

I'm sorry to say, Miss Chua Lee Hoong, not everyone is like you.

---
PS. If CSJ and SDP are not all credible an opposition as you claim, why are you writing a full article to 'condemn' him and smear his name over the mud? Gutter journalism, I'd say.

What has ST become seriously? *shakes head in disbelief*

Anyway, you gotta see this video.

Can't find actual transcipts of exchanges between Lee and Chee?

Funny thing is I have to find the actual transcripts (though not verified if contents are accurate but they do look accurate enough) from various blogs. I can't even find them from any government sites or from Straits Times. Can someone please link them to me?

And why are the actual transcripts so easily obtainable from the Singapore Democrat (link here)? I want to read it from actual government or PAP sites to see how they compare. This will let me have a better overview of how the court session went.

C'mon, Straits Times and government bodies, you should be more detailed and impartial. Not that I support any party but aren't your articles too biased? Let the people decide for themselves.

Another read here.

Sheesh...