Mdm Yeong: Chee Lies Again

Taken from Today Online.

CHEE LIES AGAIN: MM’S PRESS SEC

Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor

In a letter to Today, Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, the press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, responds to opposition politician Chee Soon Juan’s call forMr Lee or his counsel to produce part of a transcript from last month’s court hearing to assess damages arising from the libel suit against Dr Chee.

YOUR report “Nothing to do with political freedom” (3 July 2008) refers to my letter to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and toDr Chee Soon Juan’s response published on his website.

In my letter to the WSJ, I said that in the recent defamation cases, Dr Chee had called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew ‘murderers, robbers, child molesters’ and ‘rapists’ in open court.

Dr Chee alleged that I had lied, and challenged me to produce the relevant transcript.
I enclose p. 115 of the verbatim court reporting transcript of the hearing on28 May 2008. Line 11 onwards reads:

Mr Davinder Singh: “ ... And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

Mr Singh: “And this is the man who says “I don’t wish them ill”.

Dr Chee has once again lied toSingaporeans.

---
Alright let's read the partial transcript of the court proceedings which caused this ruckus.

I don't know about how the legal terms or procedures are. On paper, it states Dr Chee has labelled the leaders as 'murderers and robbers', 'rapists' and 'child molesters'

But my understanding of the words exchanged is: Dr Chee is so fed up with the legal proceedings and misinterpretations that sacarsm has ruled his words.

Take for example (or lack of better of at the moment):
A wife was quarreling with her husband. She accused him of not spending enough time with her. In her opinion, he was more interested in golf and his golfing kakis, one of whom was a woman named Mary. (No offense to any Marys here.)

He tried to defend himself with reassurance of his love and time.

In response to him with frustration that nothing was going to change, she shot back, "Since you are so defensive, you might as well start an affair with Mary since you are spending so much time with her in golf!"

Now on paper technically, she did tell him to have an affair.

However in context of the heated argument, she was insinuating that her husband's love and time for golf was driving their marriage apart. It was as if he had committed adultery. But did he commit adultery? Of course not! Was she asking him? By no means. Was she implying he did? I do not think so.

It stems from frustration with a man cornered. It's like following up with a statement, "Since you claim this to be so, you might as well put in such-and-such. It makes no difference to me."

So, Mdm Yeong, I've said numerous times. Don't show me partial transcripts. It can deviate from the truth and the context it was quoted upon.

Take the 'text' out of 'context', it becomes 'con'. Till now, you have yet to show us the full transcripts.

For you readers, hear the proceedings and read the transcripts from the SDP website and make your own judgement and conclusions.