Thursday, July 10, 2008

When did LKY and ST become flip-floppers?

I was a bit stunned at the audacity of it all.

First LKY claimed in the defamation suit against CSJ that the IBA (International Bar Association with 30k strong members) had praised Singapore's judicial system. And the association had even sent him a letter of approval.

IBA is a world recognized body. Its endorsement of Singapore judiacial system is like a stamp of approval. It's like having ISO9001 on your IT processes.

Then SDP called the 'bluff' when it verified with IBA. IBA not only denied having sent any letter, it produced a 72-page report criticizing Singapore on the human rights issues and press freedom.

Ouch.

Now I have Straits Times rebutting IBA's report here.

So I'm wondering now, first you used IBA's name to bring up Singapore's judicial system. Now you rebuke the same very association for publishing a report.

So which is which? You mean Singapore is so unique that only the PAP government can define what is right?

It's like telling International ISO9001 that they have got it all wrong. They don't really know our IT processes, so they shouldn't be telling us what to do, what to change. Put it bluntly, it's like telling ISO9001 - YOU SUCK!

Right. Who used IBA's name in the first place? Surely it wasn't CSJ.

Ahh... the absurdity of politics. No wonder I'm no politician.

PS. Sometimes I wished we had more humble ministers who would admit their mistakes when they boo-boo. Not 'sorry that it had happened'. But simply 'SORRY'. It soothes an angry soul.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from an arrogant bunch of idiots. Our government also happens to be very good at going around and telling everyone how to succeed like they did not realising that the countries they're advising are alot larger and don't have a compliant population like we have here in Singapore.

Anonymous said...

The funny part is they think they can get away with this. In the old days maybe, no one will have any opportunity to point out and get his piece published in the 'old media'.

Lest we forget, they like to hear only the praisewothy stuff, not the criticisms. That's their version of reality!

Anonymous said...

The internet with numerous intelligent bloggers have exposed LKY and ST. Their combination worked perfectly in the old days and consistently score 10/10.

However the situation in our world is dynamic and the LKY + ST combination have to re-invent themselves if they intend to hang on to whatever credibility that is remaining. The way things are going, I don't see any positive changes.
Simply put, how do you recycle a person who is way past his use-by-date ?
The best motivator in the world will not succeed with such an incorrigible old fool.

Anonymous said...

I don’t think the word “apology” is in PAP’s dictionary. So far how many MIW has openly admitted mistake sincerely? Back 2006 MP Wee Siew Kim apologized for her daughter’s comment on elitism, Wee seems disappeared from publics’ eye. Wong Kan Seng may have learned from Wee. One is safe if flip-flop.

Anonymous said...

I am just wondering out loud, if LKY had said this in Court ... about how Singapore's judiciary was lauded by the IBA which should have then been recorded as evidence for court proceedings, and it has been subsequently debunked that there was no such letter from the IBA's president in the first place, then isn't he then telling an untruth to the court? If so, is there no consequences which should flow from such an act?

just wondering out loud.

Kaffein said...

Er, it's called perjury, or making false statement under oath.

Anyway, from Davinder Singh, it's called 'inaccuracy', not perjury.

Another rambling was when LKY entered the court room, not all of the people with him were declared. In the courts, all observers must be declared. There was a young MP with LKY but when asked what his presence was in court by CSJ, the judge ignored it.

I called it "the law only applies to some". That's why people has been calling the defamation court proceedings as 'kangaroo courts'.