The next General Election guessing game is on

I've never had the opportunity to vote. Its been walkovers in the places that I've lived. I did have the opportunity to be a counting agent but that's the closest I got. Obviously it can't compare to actually casting a vote yourself. It'll be unfair to squarely put the blame on the opposition political parties for these walkovers or their performance generally.

One cannot see the General Election in isolation but as part of a system here which makes sure the ruling party stays in power. This system includes such things as the local media infected with bias; the Courts because defamation lawsuits (and whatever else the ruling party can come up with) are used to silence (or terribly mute) current and future opposition candidates and citizens alike (not all but most); government departments & agencies and generally a system which follows the saying he who pays the piper calls the tune, a still very real climate of fear, etc, etc.

With such seemingly insurmountable obstacles, its easy to just give up and say aiyah! f***lah its always been like that and will always be like that!. It doesn't have to be so. We have to do what we can however little it may be. Here are two links to articles which provide food for thought but most importantly templates for real action: Online politicization: Singapore’s source of new activists and What will you do when the elections come?.

Meanwhile, let the guessing games begin. For those political junkies, i recommend paying a visit to Singapore Elections as a start for a good fix.

PAP calling snap elections?
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Singapore Democrats

There are rumours floating around that the PAP may call for a snap election. A few of SDP's friends have told us that some of their civil service friends have received letters asking them to undergo training as election officials.

There are also whispers that there is heightened activity at the Elections Department. In addition, some schools have been identified as nomination and polling stations.

Of course, these are unconfirmed stories. We have not been able to verify their accuracy.

We would not be surprised, however, if the PAP junked their five-year term and go for early polls. Given the economic situation which is going to get worse – much worse – in the coming few years, the PAP may be tempted to go for elections sooner rather than later.

Of course, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's age is a major factor. Without him, PAP would be without its ballast. The octogenarian PAP-founder is still at the front, back and centre of everything the Government does, even outperforming his prime minister son.

---

Groundwork for GE starts
By Aaron Low
Nov 12, 2008, ST Online

THE Elections Department has started preparations for the next general election, which is due at the latest by Feb 2, 2012.

It has identified 28,000 civil servants to become election officials, and has begun sending letters out to them.

Replying to queries from the Straits Times, a spokesman for the Elections Department confirmed that it started sending out the letters last month. These letters notify the public officers of their selection as election officials and the training they will undergo.

Officials will be given one of seven roles, ranging from the highest position of returning officer, who is overall in charge of organisation at a polling station, to counting assistants who tally up votes.

Training covers election laws, the electoral and voting procedures, and the handling of voting queues and issues on Polling Day, such as voters who turn up without proper identification.

Although 28,000 public servants are being called up, the actual number deployed will depend on the number of contested constituencies.

The spokesman added that prior to 2004, election officials were called up for training only after the writ to dissolve Parliament was issued by the President.

By law, Nomination Day has to be at be least five working days after the writ is issued.

In 2004, the Elections Department decided to call up civil servants for training much earlier.

In November that year - three years after the 2001 election - it sent notices to 20,000 civil servants to call them up for training.

The General Election was held eventually in May 2006.

The Elections Department spokesman told The Straits Times yesterday that some schools have been designated as polling stations for the next election.

'Such routine activities are part of our efforts to enhance service delivery,' she added.

Asked if the plans were an indicator of an early election, the spokesman said no.

Nevertheless, the moves by the Elections Department have sparked speculation that a snap election may be on the cards.

At a dialogue with young Singaporeans two weeks ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in response to a question whether polls could be held ahead of the 2012 deadline, said it was possible.

"Yes, jobs of foreign workers are being cut" says anonymous official from MOM

This is a report from Mizzima News,

Singapore cut jobs of migrants

by The The & Myint Maung
Monday, 10 November 2008 14:08

New Delhi – With at least 10 Burmese workers in Singapore getting laid off in the past two weeks, workers in Singapore worries that more will follow in the coming days as Singapore harbours itself from the impacts of global financial meltdown.

"I was on this job for two months. My job is to supervise about 100 workers under me. They fired me on the ground of inefficiency," a Burmese worker who was sacked from 'Engmech' Construction Company in Singapore told Mizzima.

While Engmech refuse to comment on the firing, the Burmese worker said he felt it could be due to the global financial crisis.

"Firing me from the job coincided with the fall in stock prices. I don't think they have any more projects to employ us. There might be further job cuts," he said.

Another worker, who was dismissed from 'Sheng Wong' Construction Company said, "They fired me on account of lack of language proficiency. They said that I could not understand their language well and neither could I do the jobs assigned to me well enough."

Apart from Burmese workers, over 180 foreign workers from Philippines, Bangladesh, India and China have been fired so far from their jobs at 'Enmech' Construction Company," a Burmese worker who was sacked from the company said.

According to him, most of them recently fired from their jobs have poor educational background and little experience. Some of them have been here for only a few months with work permits.

However, the company that fires the employees says the workers are sacked basically because of their poor performance and not as an impact of the global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, an official from Singapore's Ministry of Manpower, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the job cuts saying, "Yes, jobs of foreign workers are being cut".

But the official declined to give details on why workers were being fired and how many have been dismissed from their jobs so far.

When contacted, most of the companies, said that they were not cutting jobs because of the global economic crisis. But Xinhua news agency quoting the Minister of Trade and Industry reported on October 20 that Singapore was affected by the international financial crisis. The report quoted the Minister Lim Hing Kiang said that the global economic slowdown has affected the Singapore economy and domestic companies.

A few days after that, Singapore companies resorted to wage cuts of foreign workers working in their companies, some Burmese workers said.

A Burmese worker, employed in a computer parts manufacturing company said, "Our Company has not cut jobs yet but they are going to resort to wage cuts. We have heard that those earning under US$ 3,000 will face 6 per cent cuts in their wages and those earning over US$ 3,000 will have to bear 20 per cent cuts."

"The newcomers are facing many more difficulties here. The old ones are suffering only wage cuts," he added.

About 50,000 to 60,000 Burmese workers earn a livelihood in Singapore.

Vigil on Nov 15 at Speakers Corner for peace in Sri Lanka; Circle of Violence - A short film about the conflict in Sri Lanka

Thanks to my friend Rachel for informing me of this event via facebook. You can sign-up/log-in to view the event here or visit the worldwithoutwar.sg website.

The Vigil for peace in Sri Lanka will be held at Hong Lim Park aka Speakers' Corner on Nov 15 (Sat) and is scheduled to begin at 5pm and end at 7pm. From the event's facebook page,

The civil war in Sri Lanka is one of the world's deadliest ongoing armed conflicts, causing significant harm to the population, environment and severe damage to the economy of the country. Now 25 years running, it has claimed at least 215,000 lives and displaced more than 1.5 million people.

The possibility of a lasting peace was raised when a cease-fire agreement was signed with international mediation in 2002. However on January 2, 2008 the government formally announced withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement and the conflict has escalated to critical levels in the recent months. Donor countries such as the United States, Canada, and Norway have shown deep regrets on this decision by the Sri Lankan government.

On September 9, 2008, the Government of Sri Lanka ordered all aid agencies to leave the northern areas of conflict and take their equipment with them. UN agencies and international relief organizations including Oxfam, Save The Children and the Danish Refugee Council that have been delivering food and medical aid to nearly 200,000 refugees in the affected region started to pull out.

The international community must take decisive steps to pressure the Government of Sri Lanka to abandon the path of militarism and opt for a negotiated political settlement.

Join us at Speakers' Corner, Singapore on this day to light a candle and show your support for peace in Sri Lanka.

Visit BBC World News' page on Sri Lanka and Amnesty International's reports and statements on the conflict there. And here for my previous blogpost about a one-man demonstration.

This is a 2007 short film by Journeyman Pictures called Circle of Violence about the conflict in Sri Lanka. You can either watch the 27min film here in one go or below in 3-parts,

A jaw-dropping, nearly-fell-off-the-chair moment

I realise such things shouldn't surprise me at all but still my jaw dropped when i read this report especially the section i've highlighted in bold.....

AG seeks 'substantial fine'
He asks court to send strong message in contempt of court case against WSJA.
By Zakir Hussain, ST Online, Nov 4, 2008

ATTORNEY-General Walter Woon has pressed for a substantial fine to be imposed on the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA) for contempt of court.

This was not the first time that the Hong-Kong based newspaper had attacked Singapore's judiciary, he told the High Court on Tuesday morning at the start of contempt of court proceedings against the WSJA. (Note: You might want to also refer to my blogpost about this case)

He called on the court to send a message that would stop others from launching similar attacks, which if left unchecked, would erode the rule of law here as they had in other democracies that the WSJA wanted Singapore to emulate.

Professor Woon said the three articles clearly insinuated that Singapore judges were biased.

There is space to criticise and debate policies, but 'leave the judiciary out of it. Judges are not political creatures, do not play favourites, (and) are neutral when it comes to politics', he said.

The Government is accusing Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) - which owns and publishes the WSJA - and Hong Kong-based editors Daniel Hertzberg and Christine Glancey of contempt over three articles published in June and July.

But Hertzberg and Glancey have applied to set aside the service of the court summons on them.

The court will hear their application at a later date. As such, only the case against Dow Jones is being heard this week.

Two of the offending articles are the newspaper's editorials, and the third is a letter from Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan.

These allege that the Singapore judiciary is not independent, is biased and lacks integrity, the Attorney-General's Chambers had said in September when it initiated proceedings against the WSJA and the editors.

As i've mentioned elsewhere, since the Attorney-General's at it, he might as well bring contempt of court proceedings against the two separate organisations who issued two separate reports which contain these as part of their conclusions,

The judiciary in Singapore has a good international reputation for the integrity of their judgments when adjudicating commercial cases that do not involve the interests of PAP members or their associates. However, in cases involving PAP litigants or PAP interests, there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence, which casts doubt on the decisions made in such cases. Although this may not go so far as claimed by some non-governmental organisations, which allege that the judiciary is entirely controlled by the will of the executive, there are sufficient reasons to worry about the influence of the executive over judicial decision making. Regardless of any actual interference, the reasonable suspicion of interference is sufficient. In addition, it appears that some of the objective characteristics of judicial independence, including security of tenure, separation from the executive branch and administrative independence may be absent from the Singapore judicial system - International Bar Association Human Rights Institute's July 08 report

A number of factors amply demonstrate that Singapore is not governed by the rule of law. These factors include: a demonstrated lack of independence of lawyers to stand between the state and citizens without fear of reprisals, inadequate statutory safeguards of the independence of the judiciary, a perception of executive influence over the judiciary in cases involving PAP interests, the stifling of public debate regarding issues of public importance through laws restricting freedom of assembly and freedom of expression to a degree incompatible with democracy, the threat of arbitrary arrest and detention through use of the ISA, and, the use, by members of the executive and the PAP, of defamation suits to punish and incapacitate government critics and members of opposition parties - Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada's Oct 07 report

I updated this blogpost at 1955hrs with these two reports:

Wall Street Journal raised doubts about Singapore judiciary: govt

SINGAPORE, Nov 4, 2008 (AFP) - The Wall Street Journal Asia has raised doubts about the integrity of Singapore's judiciary and should be held in contempt, the country's attorney-general told the High Court on Tuesday.

On the opening day of proceedings against the newspaper and two of its editors, Attorney-General Walter Woon said three articles it published in June and July this year had undermined the city-state's judiciary.

The articles were two editorials and a letter by Singapore pro-democracy activist Chee Soon Juan, which the attorney-general's office said alleged the judiciary was not independent, was biased and lacked integrity.

"This case is not about the freedom of speech per se," Woon said in his submissions to Justice Tay Yong Kwang.

"It is about the rule of law and the vital role that the courts and judiciary play in its maintenance."

Singapore does not stop anybody from criticising its laws but a line must be drawn when the criticisms become an attack on the integrity of the judge and the court, said Woon.

"We do not say you cannot criticise the laws... but you leave the judiciary out of it. (Our) judges are not political creatures... the fact that they apply Singapore laws does not make them biased," he said.

Facing contempt charges are the newspaper's publisher Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia), Inc, international editor Daniel Hertzberg and managing editor Christine Glancey.

Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, representing the Wall Street Journal Asia's publisher Dow Jones Publishing and the two editors concerned, argued that his clients had not undermined the court.

"It is necessary for your honour to consider whether there is one sole word that is in contempt of the court," he said.

After proceedings were adjourned for the day, Dow Jones released a statement defending its publication of the articles.

"Today in court we defended our right to report and comment on matters of international interest, including matters concerning Singapore," said the statement.

"We also argued that in this instance, what we published simply does not constitute contempt of court."

International human rights groups have accused Singapore leaders of using the courts to stifle dissent; they, in turn, argue this is necessary to protect their reputation from unfounded attacks.

Singapore's leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from defamation suits filed against critics and foreign publications.

Most recently, the Far Eastern Economic Review, was found by a High Court judge to have defamed the country's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The Far Eastern Economic Review is a sister publication of the Wall Street Journal Asia.

---

Singapore says WSJ wages two-decade judicial attack
By Melanie Lee, Reuters

SINGAPORE, Nov 4 - Singapore's attorney general accused the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday of waging a two-decade campaign to besmirch the Singapore judiciary, at the start of a contempt of court case brought against the newspaper.

Singapore's attorney general is seeking contempt proceedings against the publisher of the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, News Corp's Dow Jones & Co, and two of the newspaper's editors, Daniel Hertzberg and Christine Glancey. "Freedom of speech in Singapore allows a person to criticise government policy and the decisions of the courts. There is no fetter on public debate about policy," attorney general Walter Woon said in court.

"When discussion of a court's judgments becomes an attack on a judge or the judiciary, then the law of contempt of court steps in," he said.

Singapore first took legal action against the Wall Street Journal in 1985 for contempt of court for an editorial commenting on the trial of late Singapore opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam. The Wall Street Journal apologised and was fined $7,600, according to newspaper reports.

Woon said he was looking for a "substantial fine" to be imposed on Dow Jones in the current case, but was not looking to cripple the company financially.

The case is the latest in a string of legal actions brought by the Southeast Asian country against foreign news organisations.

The attorney general's office said the two editorials published in the Asian Wall Street Journal, entitled "Democracy in Singapore" and "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," alleged that Singapore's judiciary was "not independent" and "is biased and lacks integrity".

The lawyer representing Dow Jones Publishing Co Inc, Philip Jeyaretnam, said the two editorials were opinion pieces, with a smart and informal tone that should not be read as sarcastic or disrespectful.

"Newspapers don't conduct 25-year campaigns, and the Wall Street Journal is certainly not part of any campaign," Jeyaretnam said in his opening remarks to the court.

Jeyaretnam, the son of J.B. Jeyaretnam and a former president of Singapore's Law Society, said the defence of fair criticism should apply and the publication had shown no malice.

"The readership of the Wall Street Journal Asia is a discerning one ... It expects to hear different sides of any debate and to make up its own mind," he said.

Singapore leaders have won damages, settlements and apologies in the past from foreign media groups when they reported on local politics, including The Economist, the Far Eastern Economic Review, Bloomberg News and the Financial Times.

Contempt of court trials begin today; James Cook University suspends John Tan

These two trials begin today while a third is on the way. Refer to my earlier posts here, here and here.

Contempt of court trials begin tomorrow
Monday, 03 November 2008
Singapore Democrats

The trial for contempt of court against Mr John Tan, Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal will commence tomorrow at 10 am in Hight Court 6B. The three were charged for wearing T-shirts with a picture of a kangaroo. The hearing is expected to last from 4-6 Nov 08.

Attorney-General Walter Woon is asking for imprisonment or "other punishment as the court may impose", and for the cost of the legal action.

In meantime, the trial of the 18 Tak Boleh Tahan (TBT) activists in the Subordinate Courts has been adjourned because the contempt case was scheduled in the midst of the TBT trial (23 Oct 08-7 Nov 08) Mr Tan and Mr Shafi'ie are among the defendants.

The three are charged for wearing the T-shirts within and in the vicinity of the Supreme Court building when a hearing was being held before Judge Belinda Ang for the assessment of damages payable by Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee Siok Chin and the SDP to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

In addition, Mr Tan is also cited for pointing to the picture of a kangaroo on his T-shirt and saying, "This is a kangaroo court" to Mr Lee Kuan Yew when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside the courtroom.

Mr Tan also pointed out that had it not been the Straits Times that first published the photograph with the "kangaroo three" and the current legal actions from the AG, the wearing of the T-shirts itself would never have impugned the reputation of the Singapore Judiciary.

Also starting tomorrow is the trial of Dow Jones, which publishes Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA), Mr Daniel Hertzberg, Editor of WSJA, and Ms Christine Glancey, Managing Editor of WSJA.

The AG's Chambers are accusing the newspaper of alleging that the Singapore Judiciary is not independent, and that it is biased and lacks integrity by publishing three articles involving Dr Chee Soon Juan.

Jacob's update on 5 Nov, 0100hrs: The kangaroo t-shirts trial has been adjourned till Nov 24. Read about the adjournment, and a letter with regards to John Tan's suspension, here.

Meanwhile another disturbing development,

Australian university in Singapore suspends John Tan
Monday, 03 November 2008
Singapore Democrats

James Cook University (JCU) has suspended Mr John Tan from his position as a lecturer. This is because Mr Tan, who is also the assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democrats, is being charged with contempt of court by Attorney-General Walter Woon.

Mr Tan was informed of the decision on 21 Oct 08 when he was called in to the Dean's office and abruptly handed the letter informing him that he was suspended with immediate effect.

Mr Tan subsequently went to see Dr Dale Anderson, CEO of JCU. In that meeting, Dr Anderson showed Mr Tan an email that was sent to the university by a "Collin Lim".

The CEO admitted that he did not know who this Collin Lim was or if he was, in fact, a student at the university. The email noted Mr Tan's political activities and said that the psychology lecturer was associated with Dr Chee Soon Juan.

Dr Anderson also drew Mr Tan's attention to the fact that Collin had copied the email to the Minister for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen.

When Mr Tan appealed to the academic principles of JCU, Dr Anderson replied that "half of the school is owned by Singapore" and implied that there was nothing he could do because he was under the employment of Singapore.

In response, 28 of Mr Tan's students and former students wrote letters of support of Mr Tan to the university to which Dr Anderson replied: "I cannot enter into a discussion on this matter until it is clear of court action."

The suspension is completely out of order for the following reasons:

* Mr Tan has not yet been convicted of the charge. The trial begins only tomorrow, 4 Nov 08. He was suspended on 21 Oct.
* The action appears to have been triggered by an email complaint that cited Mr Tan's association with Dr Chee Soon Juan and which was copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen.
* The suspension stayed despite an appeal by Mr Tan citing testimony from 28 of his students that he had gone about his work in a professional manner.

It is clear from the above that the University acted out of fear of the Singapore Government and suspended Mr John Tan for reasons other than academic considerations.

JCU's action is disgraceful on several counts. First, it has completely and utterly failed to uphold and protect academic principles and the rights of its employees.

Second, it jumped the gun by suspending Mr Tan before his conviction. The letter of suspension cites the AG taking contempt proceedings and not conviction.

Third, even if Mr Tan is convicted, does the university not have the obligation to protect the free speech of its employees?

Fourth, why was Mr Tan's attention drawn to the reference to Dr Ng Eng Hen? Is this not an indication that the suspension was politically motivated?

Would JCU have behaved in a similar way towards its academics back home in Australia? If not, how can the university claim to provide quality education to Singaporean students if it is so fearful of the Singapore Government? Is JCU in Singapore just to make money regardless of the type of education it provides or does it value academic freedom?

The university is based in Queensland but has campuses in Brisbane and Singapore.

And lastly a video. See here and here for my earlier posts on the trial of the tak boleh tahan activists.

Attorney-General of Singapore goes after Gopalan Nair for contempt of court

According to this media release, the Attorney-General "has applied to court for contempt proceedings to be instituted against Gopalan Nair" for "stating, inter alia, that the courts were being abused for political ends" and "has also attacked the independence and impartiality of the Singapore Judiciary and District Judge Leong in his web log".

Gopalan Nair aka Singapore Dissident is currently in jail for 3 months. He began serving the sentence on Sept 20. See this blogpost about that case and also this video,


This will be the third contempt of court proceedings brought by the Attorney-General. The other two are against the "kangaroo court" activists and Wall Street Journal Asia.

Maybe, since he's at it, the Attorney-General should also bring contempt of court proceedings against the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) for their July 2008 report and/or Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for their Oct 2007 report.

See my Nov 13 post for an update on Gopalan Nair's "contempt of court" charge

This is also National Service

These are my earlier blogposts on the trials these activists face: The TBT 18 trial is a Rape of the Constitution of Singapore; Tak Boleh Tahan trial - First day of State persecution of activists and Singapore's AG's Chambers go after "kangaroo court" activists.

Bravest soldier in Singapore
Singapore Democrats, Oct 31

He may not be locked in combat in Iraq but he is arguably the most courageous soldier in Singapore today.

Recruit Muhammad Shafi'ie, the youngest among the Tak Boleh Tahan (TBT) activists, faces two trials in as many weeks: one for protesting against escalating cost of living in front of the Parliament House on 15 March this year and the other for contempt of court.

The 19-year old Singapore Polytechnic engineering graduate is currently a National Serviceman in the army at the Pulau Tekong Camp undergoing his Basic Military Training (BMT).

Mr Shafi'ie is now into his seventh of his 13-week BMT. He commutes between camp and the Subordinate Courts to join his fellow activists in the on-going trial.

"Everyday, I leave Pulau Tekong at seven in the morning by ferry to reach the jetty at Changi from where I head straight to the court to face the trial," he said.

Regarding the TBT protest, Mr Shafi'ie said: "In the year 2007, the GST was increased to 7% from the previous 5%. Following that, the public transport fees, tertiary education fees, the ERP, to name a few, were also increased. At around the same period of time, the highly paid ministers had another round of pay rise.

"It does not make sense that the government is taxing the population more and claiming that it is actually helping the citizens, by giving back a fraction of what is taken from us in the form of 'offset packages'. Where is our money actually going to?

"What I did on 15 March with 17 of my friends was to tell the government - Tak Boleh Tahan!"

What about his parents? They are, of course, worried about his involvement in political activism. In fact, his father was rather disappointed when Mr Shafi'ie pleaded not guilty to the current charges brought against him. Father probably wanted to get the matter over with so that his son could get out of actiivist work.

Asked why he was not pleading guilty and what he thought of the trial, the NSman said: "I don't think what we did on 15 March can be called a crime. We hurt no one and neither did we create any disorder. What we did was to express our concerns as citizens on issues that affect us deeply.

"In fact the Constitution states that citizens have the right to free speech, assembly and expression. These are basic rights, not privileges. So I don't understand why we are being charged for exercising our rights as citizens."

Through his steadfastness, Mr Shafi'ie is slowly changing his parents' minds. His mother attends the TBT trial in the subordinate court every day.

To the mild-mannered NSman, Mr Jufrie Mahmood (left, with Shafi'ie), seasoned opposition figure and fellow Tak Boleh Tahaner, has this to say:

"I hope that in the future, this land will be a more conducive and compassionate place for all. But before that can happen, we must correct the wrongdoings that are happening now. It is a responsibility, to ourselves and to the people around us.

"It is truly heartening to have a young man like you coming to the fore. I am sure there are many more like you out there waiting to be enlisted. You have started the ball rolling. Keep it going and keep up your spirits!

"It's a long, long haul indeed. But remember, a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The first few steps have been taken. If older members like myself don't make it to the end, we feel assured that youngsters like you will be there to continue on the journey. With true grit, we shall achieve, maybe sooner rather than later.

"As for myself, I will continue playing a supporting role and giving my two cents worth.

"We must persevere and have faith in what we are doing. To bring about change under the present political environment, we just cannot afford to follow the ineffective old formula year in and year out.

"Though we are much maligned now by the establishment and the local media, the day will come when we will be exonerated. The truth will inevitably emerge."

Mr Shafi'ie will face another trial together with Mr John Tan and Mr Isrizal next week in the High Court over contempt of court charges from 4-6 Nov 08. The three were charged with wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in a judge's gown.

Pictures of a Fast at Speakers' Corner

I went down to Hong Lim Park today morning to see the fast by Mr Thamilmarain. He was fasting to call attention to the innocent & helpless children, women & men who are dying in Tamil Eelam Sri Lanka, for peace in Sri Lanka and for peace talks to take place.

These are some photos i took while i was there. Click on the photos to view larger versions. See also Seelan's blogpost.

Mr Thamilmarain speaking to TOC. Click here for TOC's video.

Police drop-in. The man standing next to them is Mr Thamil's friend, Mr Raja, who was there to support him.

These next 5 photos show the police checking Mr Thamil's registration with NParks and his particulars. At one stage, out of curiosity I clarified with the police why they had to do this when they could get the details themselves from NParks and whether this was normal procedure. I told the police i was asking because there have been other events at Speakers Corner where the police didn't come up to the speaker(s) and/or demonstrator(s) and do such things. One of the police chaps replied it was just normal for them to check.

In this next photo, the police approach three foreign workers who were also there to see and support the fast. I took the photos showing the police questioning these foreign workers. But i'm not publishing them here, save for this photo, because even though the workers were just there to see & support the fast and talk to Mr Thamil, I do not want my photos of them to be the cause of any trouble for these foreign workers and their livelihood. Getting back to this photo, the police asked the three workers for their particulars, especially their work permits, and their reasons for being there. The three workers left after that.

After the police were done, they left and met NParks officials who arrived in a green NParks van.

These NParks officials hung around observing the fast from a distance.

A silent fast at Speakers' Corner tomorrow 27 Oct

I received an sms earlier about an event tomorrow at Speakers' Corner,

A silent fast on Mon 27 Oct 2008 from 9am - 7pm at Speakers Corner for those innocent & helpless children, women & men who are dying in Tamil Eelam Sri Lanka. Please support this cause for peace and justice by going down and visiting the protestor Mr Thamilmaraian tomorrow.

See also Seelan's blogpost.

By sheer coincidence i uploaded a post, about a 2007 documentary called A World of Conflict, on my other blog a couple of minutes before i received the message. The conflict in Sri Lanka was one of the conflicts covered,


As conflicts go, there are many sides to the story. Visit the International Crisis Group's page on Sri Lanka for more detailed information about the conflict there.

Tak Boleh Tahan trial - First day of State persecution of activists

The TBT 18 trial began yesterday.


I wanted to go down and show my support but was unable to do so. Among other things, I've been having excruciating pain emanating from my backbone. Possibly an inflammation. Damn pain's a killer!! I'll probably be away from my PC for the next two days or so after this blogpost.

Here's a report from the Singapore Democrats' website of the first day's proceedings. The trial's scheduled to last till 7 Nov 2008.

AGC cannot decide whether to use video or not

The courtroom was packed with the accused persons as well as members of the public who had turned up to watch the trial of 18 persons charged for taking part in a protest on 15 Mar 08.

The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600.

The defendants then insisted that they be given copies of the video footage that the prosecution had said that it was going to introduce as part of the evidence.

Mr Chia Ti Lik informed the court that he had written to the AG's Chambers (AGC) that the defendants be allowed to view the police DVD. This was back in 8 Sep 08.

Dr Chee Soon Juan added that on 7 Oct 08, he had reminded the prosecution at a pre-trial conference (PTC) about the video. The PTC judge had asked the AGC to expedite matters and release the video to the defendants.

Just three days before the trial, the prosecution called a few of the defendants that they could view the tapes at the Police Cantonment Complex. Why the dragging of feet? And why were not all the defendants informed?

When pressed today in court Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Isaac Tan told the court that the prosecution had not made up its mind whether it would use the video as evidence!

The hearing was then stood down for the AGC to make up its mind about the video and to process Mr Ng E-jay's fine.

Lunch break at Hong Lim park

When the hearing resumed at 3:30 pm, the court clerk spent the next 1 hour and 45 minutes reading out the charges to each of the defendants.

When it came to Mr Jufrie Mahmood, the officer asked him what language Mr Jufrie wanted the charge to be read in.

"English," the veteran oppositionist replied.

After the charges were read out, the clerk asked him: "Do you understand the charge?"

"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"

All the defendants then asked that Mr Yap Keng Ho be tried separately as he was not part of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign. Mr Yap made the same application and wanted to be tried separately.

The judge dismissed the application and insisted that the trial include Mr Yap.

Towards the end of the day, Mr Jeffrey George asked for his trial to be adjourned so that he could return to his contract work. Mr George is a oil-rig engineer.

The judge rejected his application.

"Can I then be excused from the hearing? I give my undertaking that I will abide by all the decisions made by the court."

The judge, too, rejected this application.

In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200.

The hearing continues tomorrow at 9:30 am in Subordinate Court 5 before Distrct Judge Chia Wee Kiat.

The TBT 18 trial is a rape of the Constitution of Singapore

18 individuals will face trial for a peaceful protest in March of this year outside Parliament House. The trial of the TBT (tak boleh tahan) 18 is scheduled to begin on 23 Oct 2008 at 9.30am in Court no.5 at the Subordinate Courts, till 7 Nov 2008.

This is the sub-section on Freedom of speech, assembly and association, under the fundamental liberties section, in the Constitution of Singapore,

Freedom of speech, assembly and association

14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

(2) Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and

(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

These 18 individuals were only exercising their constitutional rights. And they were doing it peacefully. But that doesn't matter one bit when Parliament is dominated by the ruling party; the above section starts with subject to clauses; and the beginning of the end starts with Parliament may by law impose. Its not hard to see the rape of the constitution when it comes to situations like the one the TBT 18 are facing.

Sadly, its instances like these over the years that give credence to the saying that the Constitution is not worth the paper its written on.

A dedicated TV channel after 45 years

Vasantham Central is a mostly Tamil-language, free-to-air, Indian TV channel in Singapore. I've mostly watched the channel for the Tamil movies.

Vasantham, which means Spring in Tamil, is celebrating because from today it'll have its own channel. Its billed by the station as a historic milestone in local broadcasting. It is indeed historic.

On the other hand, a friend of mine asked yesterday why did it take so long and do we have to wait another half-century for a second Indian channel. The channel is part of the government-controlled Mediacorp TV which has a monopoly of free-to-air TV in Singapore. It has taken 45 years since TV debuted nationwide on 2 April 1963 and through the many changes in the local broadcasting scene.

Its good that there's a dedicated channel now but it also says alot when it has taken 45 years to have one.

Stupid f@3$!%s spoiling for a fight

I read this report about an incident outside Plaza Singapura yesterday night. It was one of those why you look at me? things that led to a bloody fight.

To brand all teenagers, who gather with their friends, as troublemakers would be unfair.

But there are those idiotic assholes who are just spoiling for a fight over minor things. So to these idiots, if you really feel things can only be settled with violence, go get yourselves a one-way ticket to some war-torn or conflict ridden place in the world. You'll only need a one-way ticket because with that kind of an attitude, you won't need a ticket back.

Singapore’s leaders should end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition - Human Rights Watch

Singapore: End Efforts to Silence Opposition

Defamation Suits Put Party at Risk of Bankruptcy

(New York, October 17, 2008) – Singapore’s leaders should end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition, Human Rights Watch said today.

“Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore’s claim to be a model democracy,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Opposition criticism of the government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.”

Human Rights Watch urged the Singaporean government to lift legal restrictions on freedom of expression to bring the country in line with international law.

On October 13, 2008, in Singapore’s latest defamation ruling, the High Court ordered the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary general, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a total of SD$610,000 (US$416,000). The suit stemmed from an article in the party’s newsletter comparing the way Singapore is governed to a scandal at a well-known charity. Six other defendants, all SDP central executive committee members, had previously issued an apology and paid a total of SD$340,000 (US$233,000) to the plaintiffs.

The ruling threatens to compel the SDP to declare bankruptcy and shut down.

The People’s Action Party has been in power since self-governance began in Singapore in 1959. In the last election in May 2006, it won 82 out of 84 parliamentary seats. The SDP has not won any seats in Parliament since 1991, when it captured three seats in its biggest election win.

Dr. Chee and Ms. Chee are not the first opposition leaders to be driven into bankruptcy by defamation suits. In 2001, J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition member of Parliament, who died on September 30, 2008, was made bankrupt through damages awarded to the two Lees and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Bankrupt Singaporean citizens are prohibited from running for office and may not travel abroad without permission from the government’s Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office.

In July 2008, the government refused to permit Ms. Chee to take part in a democracy leadership program at Stanford University in the United States. Dr. Chee’s travel applications have been repeatedly rejected.

The assault on free speech by Singapore’s leaders extends to critical foreign publications circulating in Singapore – whether newspapers, magazines or websites. In September 2008, the Lees won a defamation suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review and its editor, Hugo Restall, for comments on the SDP case. Damages are yet to be assessed. In a further action, the government is seeking contempt proceedings against the publisher and two editors of the Asian Wall Street Journal for editorial comments related to the same case.

In October 2007, the Financial Times publicly admitted it erred in its allegations that “nepotistic motives” were involved in the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong as prime minister in 2004 and the appointment of his wife, Ho Ching, as chief executive officer of Temasek Holdings, the state investment vehicle, in 2002. The Financial Times agreed to pay costs and damages. It is unclear whether the newspaper settled because the article was in error or because it wished to avoid being banned from distribution in Singapore.

In 2002, Bloomberg News settled out of court a defamation suit brought by the Lees and Prime Minister Goh. Bloomberg paid SD$595,000 ($US338,000) over “nepotism” charges similar to those for which the Financial Times apologized. In 1995, Lee Kuan Yew and two others collected US$675,000 in damages from the International Herald Tribune over the nepotism story. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew also collected US$210,000 from the International Herald Tribune for an October 1994 article stating that “some East Asia governments relied on a ‘compliant’ judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.”

“The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression,” said Pearson. “Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.”

Singapore's AG's Chambers go after "kangaroo court" activists

The Attorney-General's Chambers "has applied to court for contempt proceedings to be instituted against Tan Liang Joo John, Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman" according to a media release by the AG's Chambers. Because of this,


This is a Reuters photo. At the time in May 2008, the trio were outside the court, which was having a hearing for the assessment of damages with regards to a defamation lawsuit brought by the Prime Minister and his father, the Minister Mentor, against the Singapore Democratic Party. It was only yesterday that the courts had awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to the PM and MM. On a related note, the AG's Chambers is also going after Wall Street Journal Asia for contempt of court.

Activists to be charged for contempt of court

Singapore Democrats, 14 Oct 2008

Three activists, including SDP's assistant secretary-general Mr John L Tan, will be charged for contempt of court.

Attorney-General Walter Woon will commence contempt proceedings against Mr Tan, Mr Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Mr Muhammad Shafi'ie for wearing T-shirts with a picture of a kangaroo wearing a judge's robe.

A statement on the AG's Chambers' (AGC) website stated that the three men were photographed wearing the T-shirts outside the Supreme Court during the defamation hearing between Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lee Hsien Loong and the SDP from 26-28 May 08.

The Singapore Democrats' website is cited by the AGC for reproducing the photograph of the three activists wearing the T-shirts. The photograph appeared in an SDP report of the police investigation. The statement said that the article and photograph were meant to give “wider publicity to the allegation that the Court was a kangaroo court.”

But the photograph and a report first appeared in the Straits Times the day after the activists appeared outside the courthouse. The SDP only reported about the police investigation on 27 Jul 08, a full two months after the Straits Times story was published. But the AGC's statement makes absolutely no mention of the newspaper and its photograph.

For its part, the Straits Times in its report today kept very quiet about the photograph it published on 27 May.

AG Woon adds that Messrs Tan, Isrizal and Shafi'ie “have engaged in a deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.”

The statement also indicated that Mr Tan had said to Mr Lee Kuan Yew: “This is a kangaroo court.”

The AGC took pains to point out that under common (English) law, the courts have the power to punish persons for contempt and added that “unlike in many other countries (including England and Australia), the Attorney-General is not a politician.” In Singapore he is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

---

3 to face contempt charge

By Goh Chin Lian, Political Correspondent

Oct 14, Straits Times

THREE people who wore T-shirts in the Supreme Court building depicting a kangaroo dressed in a judge's robes are being taken to court.

The Attorney-General is accusing them of scandalising the Singapore judiciary, and on Tuesday the High Court gave the go-ahead to start proceedings against the trio for contempt of court.

The accused are: Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) assistant secretary-general John Tan Liang Joo, 47, full time national serviceman Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and activist Isrizal Mohamed Isa.

They wore the T-shirts during a hearing from May 26 to 28 that involved the SDP, its chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Siok Chin, a member of SDP's central executive committee.

The hearing before Justice Belinda Ang in Court 4B was to assess defamation damages the party and the Chees had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Tan allegedly said 'This is a kangaroo court' to MM Lee when the minister walked past him outside Court 4B, said a statement on the website of the A-G Chambers on Tuesday.

In a separate statement to the media, the A-G said the three men had 'scandalised the Singapore Judiciary by publicly wearing identical white T-shirts, imprinted with a palm-sized picture of a kangaroo dressed in a judge's gown, within and in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building.'

By this, they meant to imply that the Court was a kangaroo court, the AG added.

A kangaroo court is generally understood as being a court characterised by unauthorised or irregular procedures, or sham and unfair legal proceedings, said the website statement.

It also said that Tan, as the SDP's assistant secretary-general, was also responsible for the appearance of an article, 'Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts', as well as a photograph of the three men in the T-shirts on the SDP website on July 27.

'The article and the photograph...were meant to give wider publicity to their allegation that the Court was a kangaroo court,' said the AG website statement.

The AG accused them of engaging in a 'deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.'

The High Court's approval to start contempt proceedings is the first of a two-stage process.

In the next step, the three men will be officially notified of the lawsuit, and a hearing date will be set for both sides to present their arguments in open court.

Tan and Muhammad Shafi'ie are also facing separate charges in court, with 17 others, for their involvement in an illegal assembly and march on March 15.

The sorry state of Singapore's judiciary

These are some quotes from a book titled Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary,

This book, however, is concerned with the other face of justice in Singapore: where these very same judges, sad to say, in politically-freighted cases have repeatedly demonstrated a singular facility at bending over backwards to render decisions favourable to the Singapore government and its leaders. Whereupon their judicial contortions have acquired an international notoriety....- Francis Seow, in the Preface to his book of the same title

There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice - de Montesquieu, 1689-1735

The more the courts are asked to handle political issues, the more their fragility is exposed....A judge's integrity, fairness, temperament, and knowledge of the law are all pertinent areas for public inquiry - Chief Justice Rose E. Bird

Singapore's leaders are masters at using libel suits in a compliant court system to silence or intimidate their domestic opponents and to discourage critical commentary....It saves the trouble of throwing opponents in jail, and has provided the leaders with a tidy source of outside income....- Stuart Littlemore, QC

The independence of the judiciary from the executive is the prime defence against tyranny - Winston Churchill

News reports below about the damages awarded to the PM and MM in their case against the SDP. Read SDP's article here. Read also these two reports here and here.

Singapore PM, Lee Kuan Yew win defamation damages

SINGAPORE, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Singapore's high court ordered an opposition party and its leaders to pay S$610,000 in defamation damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew, court documents showed on Monday.

The outcome is likely to result in the shut down of the opposition party Singapore Democratic Party, said its leader Chee Soon Juan, who is due to pay the damages together with sister Chee Siok Chin and six others.

Chee Soon Juan said the deadline for payment had not been set but they will not pay because they are bankrupt, after they failed to pay libel payments and legal costs in previous lawsuits.

If the damages are not paid the SDP party will be declared bankrupt, he said.

"It's not unexpected. But it's not going to deter us from doing what we have been doing, and that is speaking up for issues that Singaporeans should know about," Chee Soon Juan said.

The damages were the latest in a series paid to Singapore's ruling politicians, who have repeatedly sued the opposition and foreign media over the years.

Critics say the lawsuits are used to crush opposition, but Singapore's leaders say they need the lawsuits to protect their reputations against defamatory remarks.

The SDP was found to have defamed the Lees, two of Singapore's most powerful leaders -- Lee Kuan Yew is the founder of modern Singapore -- in 2006 after the SDP compared the government to the country's largest charity in a party newspaper.

The charity shot to notoriety in 2005 after its chief admitted to misusing public donations for extravagancies such as gold-plated taps in his office bathroom. He was forced to quit and has since been sentenced to three months in jail.

"There were serious allegations of corruption, dishonesty, nepotism and financial impropriety which the defendants persisted in maintaining without foundation to the end," the court document showed.

The document said "the libel struck at the core" of the Lees' "life achievements and personalities", and the damages took into account "the position, standing and reputation" of the Lees.

Singapore leaders have sued or won damages in the past from foreign media groups including the Economist, International Herald Tribune and Bloomberg.

(Reporting by Koh Gui Qing; Editing by Neil Chatterjee and Jerry Norton)

---

Singaporean opposition party ordered to pay PM

By ALEX KENNEDY,Associated Press Writer

SINGAPORE, Oct 14 - Singapore's High Court ruled that an opposition party and two of its leaders must pay 610,000 Singapore dollars (US$416,000) in defamation damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

The court on Monday ordered the Singapore Democratic Party and its general-secretary, Chee Soon Juan, to pay damages related to criticism published in 2006 in the party's newspaper.

The story, which questioned the government for its handling of a scandal at the National Kidney Foundation charity, was deemed libelous, according to court documents.

The ruling may bankrupt the Singapore Democratic Party and force it out of existence, the party said in a statement on its Web site.

"The Singapore Democrats stand firm in our conviction to continue to speak up for Singaporeans no matter what happens," the party said.

Chee Soon Juan was forced into bankruptcy in 2006 by a US$300,000 ruling against him for defaming Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Opposition leaders contend that defamation laws are applied selectively to silence criticism while the government says restrictions on speech and assembly are necessary to preserve economic prosperity and racial stability of this multiethnic city-state of 4.8 million people.

Singapore's leaders have sued journalists and political opponents several times in past years for alleged defamation. They have won lawsuits and damages against Bloomberg, the Economist and the International Herald Tribune.

---

MM, PM awarded $610,000 in damages

TODAY, October 14, 2008

THE High Court has ordered the Singapore Democratic Party, Dr Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Ms Chee Siok Chin, to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew $330,000 and $280,000, respectively, for defamatory articles published in the opposition party’s newsletter in February 2006.

PM Lee and MM Lee would have been awarded $500,000 and $450,000, but the court took into account the $170,000 each leader had received in 2006 from six of the opposition party leaders and three other central executive committee members who had apologised for the articles in The New Democrat.

In a written judgment released yesterday, Justice Belinda Ang said that the “allegations ... were the gravest imaginable” and the libel was “as serious ... as any allegation which imputed dishonesty could be”.

The libel was exacerbated by SDP secretary-general Dr Chee Soon Juan and central executive committee member Chee Siok Chin’s “insulting behaviour and disgraceful conduct” during cross-examination, the judge said.

The questions the Chee siblings posed were irrelevant to the assessment hearing and were only “meant to discredit, insult, embarrass and humiliate” the two leaders in public, the judge added.

Dr Chee and his sister — who are both bankrupts — had already been jailed 12 and 10 days in June after being found guilty of contempt of court.

The two defamatory articles, in English and Chinese, were published before the 2006 General Election. In them, numerous comparisons were made between the National Kidney Foundation scandal and how the Government was run. TEO XUANWEI

J B Jeyaretnam: Three decades as Lee Kuan Yew's bête noir; And other books by Michael D. Barr

Michael D. Barr is the author of the book Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man published in 2000. Its quite a good book. It peels away, layer by layer, of the propaganda and myth. Interestingly, i checked online to see if the book is still available in Select Books. Its there alright...in a manner of speaking. Its now listed as print on demand and costs a whopping S$299.25!!! Good thing I got the book years ago when it was first published and sold for about S$50 to S$60.

He's also co-editor (with Carl A. Trocki) of a new book called Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore, in which, he has written a chapter titled Singapore's Catholic Social Activists: Alleged Marxist Conspirators.

The following article about JBJ was published in 2003 in the Journal of Contemporary Asia. One can also download the article here at my scribd or download directly here.

J.B. Jeyaretnam: Three decades as Lee Kuan Yew’s bête noir - Upload a Document to Scribd

Chia Thye Poh and Lim Chin Siong

For far too long, Singapore's history has been written; told; re-told and reinforced by the victors and their minions. There's much more to our history then that.

This is a 1962 photo of Chia Thye Poh (L) and Lim Chin Siong (R) from The National Archives of Singapore's Access to Archives Online Singapore (a20). To get to the photos, click on Database followed by PICAS or Picture Archives Singapore Database. Here's the direct link to PICAS. And just do a search of whatever you're looking for.

I entered each of their names in the search box. Click here for photos of Chia Thye Poh and here for Lim Chin Siong.

Click here and here for wikepedia articles on both these personalities. See here for a 1989 interview with Chia Thye Poh by James Gomez & Susan Chua. And also SDP's articles on Lim Chin Siong: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Video: James Gomez & Internet's electoral impact

The "Gomez Findings" should serve as a rallying wake-up call

The Gomez Findings continue to provoke and prod

Videos of 4 Oct 2008 (Sat)

The first video is from watchtowerv. The rest from TOC. One can also view more videos & photos at uncleyap's blog.