AGC to commence committal proceedings against Li ShengWu

Li ShengWu

The Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) has decided to commence committal proceedings against Li ShengWu for alleged Contempt of Court and has applied to the High Court for leave to do so.

Mr Li, who is the eldest son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, had among other things, refused to accede to the AGC’s demands to remove the supposed offending post he made on 15th July criticizing the Singapore judiciary.

The AGC had on 21st July, demanded that Mr Li, by 5 pm on 28 July 2017:

(a) delete and remove the Post from his Facebook page and any other social/online media and other documents in his possession, custody or control;

(b) issue and post prominently a written apology and undertaking in the terms stated in the AGC’s letter on his Facebook page.

Mr Li, however, did not remove the supposed offending post nor apologise, but instead amended it slightly and issued a clarification on Friday (4 Aug). [ LINK ]

In his clarification, Mr Li stated that it should be evident that his post on 15th July was not an attack on Singapore judiciary if his private post was to be read in context.

Mr Li said that he had intended to convey that the international media were restricted in their ability to report on the recent crisis, due to the litigious nature of the Singapore government, and the different legal rules with respect to press freedom in Singapore as compared to countries such as the United States. There is also flexibility in Singapore’s defamation laws – they just have different boundaries from the defamation laws in other jurisdictions. The government makes use of these legal rules to restrict unfavorable reporting.

He further emphasize that it is not his intent to attack the Singapore judiciary or to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and that any criticism he had made is of the Singapore government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press. To avoid any misunderstanding of my original private post, he has since amended the post so as to clarify his meaning.

Despite the clarification, AGC noted that Mr Li has failed to accede to its demands and has applied to the High Court to commence committal proceedings.

The following is AGC’s statement. [ LINK ]

The Attorney-General’s Chambers will today file an application in the High Court for leave to commence committal proceedings against Mr Li Shengwu for contempt of court in connection with the publication of a Facebook post.

On 15 July 2017, Mr Li posted on his Facebook page the following: “If you’ve been watching the latest political crisis in Singapore from a distance, but would like a summary, this is a good one. (Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.

The Post contained a link to an April 2010 editorial published by the New York Times, entitled “Censored in Singapore”.

Mr Li’s Post was republished widely in Singapore after it was posted. On 21 July 2017, the AGC issued a letter of warning to Mr Li about the Post. In our letter, the AGC had asked that Mr Li purge the contempt, by doing the following by 5 pm on 28 July 2017:

(a) delete and remove the Post from his Facebook page and any other social/online media and other documents in his possession, custody or control;

(b) issue and post prominently a written apology and undertaking in the terms stated in the AGC’s letter on his Facebook page.

On 27 July 2017, Mr Li wrote to the AGC to request an extension of time till 5 pm on 4 August 2017 to respond to the AGC’s letter. The AGC agreed to Mr Li’s request on the same day.

As Mr Li has failed to purge the contempt and to apologise by the extended deadline, an application for leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt against him will today be filed in the High Court.

Meanwhile, Mr Li, who is currently an academic at Harvard University in the United States of America has released a letter he had written to the AGC on 4th August, which the AGC allegedly ignored.

Since the AGC has seen fit to publish their correspondence with me, I thought it would be helpful to fill in the part that they mysteriously omitted.

Mr Li’s letter to the AGC reproduced verbatim below: [ LINK ]

I refer to the letter dated 21 July 2017 from Attorney-General’s Chambers, and to AGC’s extended deadline for my response by 5pm today.

AGC takes issue with a private posting I made on Facebook on 15 July 2017 and accuses me of the offence of contempt of court because of what I said in my private post.

The context of my post is everything. AGC has taken my post completely out of context.

What I said in my private post comprises 2 sentences. My focus was on the first sentence. The second sentence is in parenthesis.

AGC’s letter, however, quotes and takes issue only with the second sentence, omitting the parenthesis.

I set out in context what I said. The second sentence is in italics but I have inserted the parenthesis as it appears in my private post:

“If you have been watching the latest political crisis in Singapore from a distance but would like a summary, this is a good one. (Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report …)

In my private post, I shared the article by Wall Street Journal: “Singapore, a Model of Orderly Rule, Is Jolted by a Bitter Family Feud” which summarized the political crisis I had referred to. I also provided a link to a New York Times editorial on the constraints to reporting by the international media.

Viewed in context, my private posting of 15 July is not a contempt of court.

AGC, refers to the second sentence of my private post and the link to the New York Times editorial, out of context, to assert that “The clear meaning of (my private post), in referring to ‘a pliant court system’, is that the Singapore Judiciary acts on the direction of the Singapore government, is not independent, and has ruled and will continue to rule in favour of the Singapore government in any proceedings, regardless of the merits of the cases.”

AGC appears to have read an entire paragraph from a single word. AGC has misunderstood me.

No one who publicized my private post had approached me for any clarification as to what I meant. However, I would like to make a clarification to resolve AGC’s misunderstanding.

In saying that Singapore has a “pliant” court system, and in providing a link to an editorial in the New York Times in April 2010 (my providing a link to an editorial does not imply that I endorse all its contents), I am not saying or imputing that the Singapore judiciary acts on the direction of the Singapore government, or that it is not independent, or that it will continue to rule in favour of the Singapore government in any proceedings regardless of the merits. A “pliant” object is flexible, supple, or adaptable. This is in contrast to a “compliant” object that is easily influenced or yielding. A “court system” encompasses the AGC, prosecutors, and the general legal environment.

By analogy, to say for instance that Singapore’s medical system is inefficient does not have to mean that its hospitals are incompetent or that its doctors are lazy. The Singapore court system operates on a different set of legal rules with respect to press freedom, compared to countries such as the United States, and has more flexibility to find the press liable for defamation. When Singapore government leaders sue a journalist for defamation, the government has a more favourable position in Singapore than in those other countries.

If my private post is read in context, it is evident that it is not intended to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The first sentence of my private post
makes clear that its focus was the coverage by the Wall Street Journal of a political crisis in Singapore. The second sentence in parenthesis cautions how the Singapore government’s litigation against the international media acts as a censorship to the coverage of the international media.

Any criticism is of the Singapore government’s aggressive use of legal rules such as defamation laws which has constrained reporting by the international press.

What I said in my private post in context does not pose any real risk of undermining
public confidence in the administration of justice.

However, I have already amended my private post to clarify my meaning.

AGC’s letter also omits the significant fact that my 15 July post is a private posting for my Facebook friends only.

Under Facebook’s terms of service, it is only when I publish content or information using Facebook’s “Public” setting, that everyone, including people off of Facebook, is allowed to access and use that information, and associate it with me. However, I did not use the Public setting for my post on 15 July. It was a private posting and no one is allowed to use or reproduce my post without my approval.

I have used Facebook for about a decade or so. I had never before had my private postings used or reproduced without my approval.

I would not have given my approval to any request to use or reproduce my 15 July private post.

However, on 15 July at 4.50pm, an anonymous Facebook user posted for public viewing an unauthorized screenshot of my private post. This user is not on my Facebook “friends” list. I do not know how this user obtained the screenshot of my private post. The unauthorized screenshot showed the symbol that my post was private and for “friends” only.

This unauthorized screenshot of my private post, and/or content from my private post, was thereafter further republished and made public without my approval by others. In the morning of 17 July, mainstream media ZaoBao, Straits Times, Business Times, Channelnewsasia and The New Paper all published online articles and Facebook postings relating to my private post.

I was not approached by any of the media or anyone for verification or clarification.

Instead, the mainstream media articles capitalized as newsworthy comments made on 16 July by Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat that he was “disappointed with” my actions and on 17 July by AGC that it was looking into my post, making my private post public news and widely circulated.

I saw the mainstream media articles and in response, on 17 July at 12.42pm I made a Facebook posting on Public setting to express my surprise that my 15 July posting had been enough to trigger a response from AGC in Singapore. I clarified that the 15 July post “was shared on ‘Friends only’ privacy settings (20 likes at the time of this writing).” I also clarified that it had been inaccurately reported that the post was “uploaded on Saturday and was later taken down” when it had never been taken down.

AGC’s letter further incorrectly asserts that it was forseeable that my private post would be republished widely in Singapore.

I am not responsible for the widespread and unauthorized publication and republication in Singapore of my private post.

I never expected that a screenshot of my private post would be leaked or the contents of my private post republished without my approval.

It was also not forseeable that thereafter my private post would warrant articles by mainstream media or that mainstream media would put my private post to Senior Minister Chee for his comments or that AGC would release a comment to mainstream media that AGC is “looking into it” or that mainstream media would publish reports capitalizing on Senior Minister Chee’s comments or the AGC’s comments.

I would have expected that mainstream media would verify with me and seek clarification of what was clearly a private posting before they carried their stories, and before they put my private post to Senior Minister Chee and AGC.

My 15 July post is confined to a private Facebook post. As AGC’s concern appears to be the public reproduction of my private post, perhaps AGC should require the mainstream media and other parties who made my private post public to delete and remove their unauthorized publications and republications. My post will remain private and has been amended to remove any misunderstanding, but not taken down.

The letter which was shared by Mr Li, was not part of the documents which was shared by AGC in its press statement.

Meanwhile, both Mr Li’s father and aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling  have continued to remain silent over this latest development.

 

 

 

 

Sponsored Content

40 Responses to “AGC to commence committal proceedings against Li ShengWu”

  • Karma has returned:

    SW dad acted like a true warrior. Qiong the battlefield to take on his enemy well ‘equipped’. But alas! Half way through, he kena conned by enemy’s crocodile tears. So decided to make peace with enemy.

    Least did SW dad expect, ruthless enemy’s attacked from nowhere and captured his son hostage. Now sign this: “38, Oxley Road would not be demolished.”

    Morale of story – Do not be fooled by crocodile tears!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Titiana Ann Xavier:

    The AGC has gone beyond arm-twisting. It is now getting ready to break every bone in Li Shengwu’s body. PM Lee Vs Siblings is making way for PM Lee Vs Nephew. An impending legal battle is on the cards. Old wounds will be reopened and new ones will be inflicted. A private family feud may escalate into a no holds barred fight in the court. LKY’s descendants will enthral the whole wide world with more never revealed before doings and dealings of Singapore’s most prominent, most wealthy and most powerful families.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PATRIOT of TEMESAK:

    IMAGINE an AG a master in the Law of the Land does NOT understand the MEANING or DIFFERENCE btx “PLIANT” and compliant…

    and…Need a Kid in the eyes of those who can see to SHOW him the WAY!!!

    What may I ask has the Law Society to say???? or are they in COMPLIANT???

    It makes me SICK to say that they are in TOTAL COMPLIANT with the LEEgal Law of the land!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Why o why?:

    Singapore hits another Guinness First in being the “thinnest skin” towards criticism and speculative deduction in the world of papical opacity of tua liap lan (big guns) and now even with justice. The First is the frequent invocation of Contempt of Court. So many until ordinary Singaporeans are wondering what is safe to take about justice in Singapore. Would a comment like ” Like shit Singapore has bloody best justice in the world ” be considered as Contempt of Court, overhear in a Food Court between two men. A third man said it all depends on who said it. The gang, no shit ok, the new citizens. Mcpherson would cry foul, no shit no but a locally born sinkie L Tean and many daftbSinkies would say shit yes. But Pap kelvin calvin…. of shit all should kena charged becos they say shit with justice. Holy shit all in a shit mess. No shit the last cannot be charged becos he is talking about holy shit and not your shit his shit or hdr shit. Now you know how the greediest the hungriest and the supteme aggressive are making bloody mesh of the shits esp their own.

    Contempt or despicable is just how you look at it. British Royalty has been favourite target of comidians even the family enjoybit and the Royal image has in fact gets better and more endear
    Why is the difference between Singapore Di and British Di?

    No woder the philos say u arecshit onlybif u behave like shit mot shatbother say. A grandpa once said if you are not why should u gets upsets.,
    . It is when you think you are and the more the more furious you will get. Sounds logical Isn’t? Is that why Sin is so unique thinnest skin

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Familee is broken:

    The Familee is now in tatters. A very sad legacy of LKY.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Why o why?:

    Now it is LHY & LWL chance to serve Singapore National interests by presenting their side of their stories. This is the essence of survival in a nepotic family with respect the direct lines and the rest. Gorilla has impled with its two fingers. PIPs gobwith the direct line and a different bet dynasty and nrpoticsm is nepotic plps memory only with who thevyua li ls omly the livingand the dead cannot po and stupid gp po the dead lp.

    Now gasa the next gen and croc tears the pres gen not becos no want but too harf on plp for plp has to go public like $2 co. Sinkies hope pap got enough lp to tell Sinkiesbhow many papvo and their businesses. If squeaky clean why hide?

    Why AGC nog interested to know after the PAPAIM PAPTC deal was revealed?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Ah Fah:

    I regret reading Shengwu’s unauthorised and widely spread FB post. I have deleted his one-line private reflection from my mind. I am also sorry for making comments about his post. Over my dead body, I hereby undertake to support Li Hongyi should he run for Prime Ministership.

    Please, everyone must apologise.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • won't it demonstrate shakiness:

    Why wouldn’t judicial deliberations be able to withstand or tolerate criticisms?

    why judiciary afraid criticism:
    Why is our judiciary afraid of criticisms or cannot withstand or tolerate criticisms?

    If their judicial deliberations are fair and just and robust, shouldn’t they be able to withstand criticisms on their own merits? Wouldn’t it only demonstrate their shakiness or their fairness if they cannot withstand or tolerate criticisms?

    You cannot undermine the Institution if it stands on a solid foundation.

    Judge:Ok to sound contemptuous: Do the judges in the US, UK or Australia (only to name a few) need to silence anyone for criticizing or challenging or making a judgment on their deliberations?

    You can say anything you want on their judgment, even if they sound contemptuous, for they have no fear of the integrity of their judgments being doubted or questioned, and their judgment are transparent and opened to scrutiny and the public or the whole world are allowed to see and come to the conclusions for themselves on the merits or partiality of their judgments.

    That is not to say that they will not admit any mistakes they may make on their deliberations. Only that they do not need to silence anyone who makes comments on or challenges their judgments.

    Only those whose decisions are not open and are biased or suspect need to silence the critics, using precisely the very tool of repression and impartiality of their judgments. And the rickety Institutions they stand on.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • LegalCowards:

    Li must understand that when the law, practiced in Sin, comes after you, it really does not matter how you express your intend because the charge is committed with much deliberation( before and beyond your Facebook post)

    Mr Li should not have bothered to defend by intent from Sin’s court charges because opinions are subjective and also could be objectively bias.

    Seriously,no one will believe, and understandably too, someone like Mr Li is incapable of saying one thing but mean the other. So the play of words like pliant and compliant could possibly mean the same and yet, true intent, cleverly obscured.

    Many of us have no faith nor trust in the legal system. Would Mr Li, whose parents and aunt’s allegations clearly have made themselves an opposing and contentious enemy of the state, be any different?

    It is his right to express his point of view. He should only stand up to bullying.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • justtryingtobefair:

    Frankly, LHL faces a lose-lose situation. If AGC was seen not to go after Li Shengwu, it would seem like the Lee family is above the law, yet by going after Li Shengwu, LHL looks vindictive.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP rule of law, and terror!:

    won't it demonstrate shakiness:

    Why wouldn’t judicial deliberations be able to withstand or tolerate criticisms?

    Does that not only demontrate there is some grain of truth in Li ShengWu’s comments?

    Are you not allowed to say what you believe is the truth? Can one be punished for saying what he or she thinks is the truth?

    Yes, you can be. Under PAP rule of law, and terror!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • BuyMeBakKutTeh:

    My guess is AGC is acting independently and wo influence from LHL or Pap.
    No father will not come in aid of his son. AGC, LHL and Pap know jolly well that LHY and LWL will sure retaliate… I’m think both younger siblings are in preparation for an all out offensive now and hope they will present all the evidents that the public had long for so much. This eruption will conclude who’s right n wrong and I got to applause AGC for initiating it! End of the day, Spore will be cleaner….

    Some of my friends think otherwise… ” AGC too cocky n Pap dun know how to spell DIE ” lol

    Let’s get some popcorn n beer…. show starting soon!

    Mr Li… I’m on your side. Victory soon!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    TWO WORDS ONLY – thoughts imprisonment.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Gov getting desperate:

    How to celebrate NDP ’17 like this?
    No mood oredi but then this news…lagi fedup.
    Cant wait for LHY n Aunty LWL to break their silence n then the real fireworks will happen…not the fake ones at the end of the NDP.
    Only the fts n new cits will be enjoying NDP anyway…just look at the faces in the crowd can easily pick out who are the real sgs n who the foreigners are.
    You know n i know…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • MarBowling:

    Most of us True Blue Singaporean were enjoying our daily naps peacefully when suddenly we were jolted up by this LJ AG(Arsehole-General)Lucy Wong latest kicking up a big fuss about some private FB comments made by Li SW aka See Peh Tua Kee. Think someone backside puay song and getting itchy all day/night LOONG after “SAWing” SW’s comments. Think Lucy Wong must be cursing himself: he should remain as a private lawyer rather than taking up the fiacking post of the AG(Arsehole-General)! No proper rest or nap all day/night LOONG since taking up the fiacking post. Esp worse or Kenna nightmare when his boss wife is on “strike”, the boss would keep on bothering him with petty private FAMILEE dispute!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Your Grandpa's Legacy:

    Karma has returned:
    SW dad acted like a true warrior. Qiong the battlefield to take on his enemy well ‘equipped’. But alas! Half way through, he kena conned by enemy’s crocodile tears. So decided to make peace with enemy.

    Least did SW dad expect, ruthless enemy’s attacked from nowhere and captured his son hostage. Now sign this: “38, Oxley Road would not be demolished.”

    Morale of story – Do not be fooled by crocodile tears!

    Still way short of having Amos balls. No need to write long statements to explain. The reality is already evident donkey years ago.
    Many silent smart people knew this since Jeya days.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • New Egg Yoke:

    The nation has fallen to full fledged demons. When proper international code of conduct and laws ARE ABUSED to persecute citizens for the sake of POWER abuse, there is no more need to discuss any future of this land. It’s clear to ALL by now that Stinkyland is a despotic Leegime determined to go the way of NKorea. Brace yourselves, the witch hunt is now on without fear for all dissenting entities. The Pinky demoness is out, knowing that even if his Late King Yama daddy rises from the dead this Hungry Ghost month, Pinky will simply unleash his AGC to dig up the old man’s grave or scatter his ashes.

    A veil of DARKNESS has covered this land. The decent 30% awaits the coming of Lord KARMA to strike this land of SG (SorryGone-case) !

    PS: Just look at Prof Huang Ji and wife who both have been banned and PR citizenship revoked. An esteemed Fellow at the LKY School SUDDENLY become state public enemy with dubious accusations. How low can Pinky and her cronies go? Shameless. Even Piggy Kim Jong Un would shake his head at Pinky for crossing the line.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • New Egg Yoke:

    Ah Fah:
    I regret reading Shengwu’s unauthorised and widely spread FB post. I have deleted his one-line private reflection from my mind. I am also sorry for making comments about his post. Over my dead body, I hereby undertake to support Li Hongyi should he run for Prime Ministership.

    Please, everyone must apologise.

    Spoke like a true SPAWN of a W.H.O.R.E. Zzzzz.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    Lucian Wong and the AGC have, of course, decided on this act against the junior Lee independently and professionally. Which must mean the following. It wasn’t that PM or government had instructed them, nor was it that they on their own surmised that PM and government would have instructed them or would be pleased by the act. Also, that, were the circumstances such that PM and government would likely be displeased, that would not affect at all their consideration to act. So, too, that the Lee family dispute was never the material background against which the junior Lee’s posting was regarded to be significant for the AGC’s attention, so that any other like posting by anyone identifiable would get the AG’s similar attention. Etc.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    LSW DID NOT WRONG in his FB conversation. Sitting member of the bench in the High Court of Australia – the highest bench in the Australian judiciary – actually said these words right in front of a public audience at James Cook University.

    Michael Kirby, Australian High Court judge: Dissent in judicial opinions is a special feature of legal systems, like Australia’s, that trace their origins to England…. Australia’s judicial tradition is different, probably because of the more libertarian history of England. Possibly it is because our leading judges are chosen in middle age from the most experienced advocates in the private sector. They are not promoted by government in a career judiciary. Our judges are therefore more resistant to pressures from government and also from their colleagues.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/JCULawRw/2005/1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Michael%20Kirby%20%20%20Judicial%20dissent

    Micheal Kirby is TELLING Australians and the ENTIRE LEGAL WORLD that Australian judges is continuously under pressures from successive governments and even their judiciary colleagues.

    YET THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE NOT INSTITUTED CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SIR MICHAEL KIRBY.

    Isn’t the confession of judicial pressures from political governance EXPLOSIVE and coming right out of the mouth of a most respected (subsequently knighted by the Queen of England) judge in Australia’s High Court – the highest and final court of appeal (there are only a few of these of no more than 5 at any one time).

    I am sure that Mr. Kirby’s lecture comment above is politically-incorrect.

    BUT WHY THE AGC in Australia kept his silence and pretended see no evil, hear no evil and just let the judicial process carrying on without the drama of political interference of an expressed PRIVATE THOUGHT of a sitting judge.

    Interesting too that Micheal Kirby also said in the same public lecture that to expect judicial decision to be on autopilot of uniformity is INFANTILE and that judges are NOT DIVINE of purity of personal values in their judgment decisions.

    Interesting too, Donald Trump appointed Jeff Sessions to his top AG job but when J. Sessions decided to recuse himself on matters appertaining to investigation of the President, HE REGRETTED THIS APPOINTMENT DECISION and hinted publicly that he wanted to sack J. Sessions. This is real “judicial interference” inhibiting independence in US too, like Australia.

    So it is bewildering to the peasants mind, how did the contempt proceedings for private opinion can be of merit.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • NotMyProblem:

    “the Singapore government is very litigious”; isn’t this a fact. PAP govt will sue until pants drop, unless he’s your brother.

    “.. and has a pliant court system”, isn’t the court supposed to be such. Capable of being influenced or formed (pliant) until both sides were heard. Or is it only for case involved PAP, where the winning side must be the PAP’s.

    So this is contempt of court?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Banana:

    He sounded apologetic and turned slightly white.

    No need to explain nor dignify a body with shady integrity. It is a matter of interpretation and how bad the mindfarkers want to make it sound at the end of the day.

    Just stand by what you had said. No need to add to it or take away from it. Defend your privacy and right to opine.

    When they drag you into the mud, you have stayed away. That’s your call. When they go on the offensive, you state their offensiveness.

    The good life you have already secure, overseas, and hence very little to lose.

    A Lee will always be a Lee. If you are not willing to close rank and shut up, be an upright outcast then but don’t be a whitish banana.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • 陈大婶:

    希望有关当局能出示多多证据,能让国人相信

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • BESMIRCHED PARENTS:

    Can someone confirm if I heard/read about him correctly? That LHL said in Parliament he didn’t want to besmirch his parents name? Was he talking cock?

    If any body is to be charged for contempt of court, it’s PAP’s mouthpieces the Shit Times, ToDie Paper and Lian He Zao P’o (broken), coz they published and publicized Li Shiangwu’s PRIVATE-SETTING Facebook posting.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Justtryingtobefair,

    LSW’S PRIVATE DISCOURSE IS INNOCUOUS AND BENIGN OF PUBLIC RELEVANCE until some desperately insecure lit the political prairie fire. Who judge the judges in the practical world? Loudly and publicly or in silence, it is the ultimate constituent – the peasants – which the judges must serve of justice dispensation. LSW’s generalised comment speaks NOTHING of the judges or specific judge in particular.

    justtryingtobefair: Frankly, LHL faces a lose-lose situation. If AGC was seen not to go after Li Shengwu, it would seem like the Lee family is above the law, yet by going after Li Shengwu, LHL looks vindictive.

    Pertinent question is this – is judges beyond accountability and public scrutiny? Look at this real world case happening of Michael Kirby – this High Court judge was the object of scurrilous attacks of his integrity and conduct in and out of Parliament – all that proven false. Yet the Australian Fed AG, D. Williams REFUSED to defend the honorable judge. Justice M. Kirby was accused of presiding in sex offences whilst he is a gay judge allegedly engaged in trawling for underaged boys using Commonwealth cars. Complete garbage of slander, he smartly let the truth exposure do all the talking. No need for the drama inside Parliament. Members of his bench took no part in the public ruckus. M. Kirby refused to sue his accusers. The judiciary is capable of silently defending its integrity and public accountability.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2002/10.pdf

    M. Kirby took the view that he is NOT beyond accountability and public scrutiny and definitely not above the law if called to account. Judges Down Under can be sacked for misconduct or incompetence – there are organs available for aggrieved litigants to complain against a judge. Until recently, this is NOT the case in Canada but that has changed in Canada and the world I guess as reflected in Australia too.

    http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/articles-caselaw/articles/myth-and-history-shield-judges-from-modern-accountability,-loose-canons-and-loaded-guns-who-judges-judges

    This article has some interesting discourse of “loaded guns” and “loose cannons” WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES?

    ” Canadians fired our prime minister twice in the last decade. Corporate CEOs get fired all the time… and Rogers, just in 2016 alone. Doctors, lawyers, and pilots lose their licenses regularly.

    Hell, even the Vatican fires priests—defrocking almost 900 between 2004 and 2014.

    But there’s one job that you pretty much can’t be fired from: Canadian judge”

    That is until Robin Camp.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Nephew also tekan!:

    Who are we ordinary Singaporeans?

    Vote for a People’s President before it is too late!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Banana

    MATE, YOUR ARGUMENTS BELOW IS FLAWED. LSW has his calculus for his measured response, I won’t want to speculate here.

    By your logic, if LSW choose to “shut up” he is law “compliant” but if he turns into a “loose cannon”, he allegedly offends some imagined law.

    THAT MEANS SILENCE IN THE MIND IS INNOCENCE BUT UTTERANCE IS OFFENCE AT LAW.

    That makes no sense to me. It is illogical of no differentiation between truth and falsity at law application. Here is my refutation – public sex (conduct) is shameful and unlawful but condemning (utterance) in protest against public sex is NOT and CANNOT be in itself and isolation an offence at law.One cannot be guilty of alleged offence of utterance and yet mysteriously innocent if that same “guilt” if locked silent in the mind, right?? So is thought a crime at law and therefore thoughts – disagreeable to anyone’s sensitivity – must be prosecuted and imprisoned?

    Look at this – A sitting High Court judge tells peasants at James Cook University that, in his knowledge and life experiences, members of the High Court bench presiding over finality /appeal decisions, are REGULARLY SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PRESSURES from successive governments Down Under. His speech was published in Austlii.edu.au for public information and education.

    Surely, if Kirby’s disclosure is in offence, Austlii.edu.au must also be deliciously scandalous of contempt of judiciary in UNLAWFUL UTTERANCE of truth because it impugn in the peasants’mind the law profession, the prosecution and the judges collectively in entirety of allowing such perversity of interference of judicial independence from politicians and pretending divine law and saint judges.

    Surely the writer of this article below would be nailed too.

    http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/articles-caselaw/articles/myth-and-history-shield-judges-from-modern-accountability,-loose-canons-and-loaded-guns-who-judges-judges

    It is scathing of its biting tongue too. Right?

    Banana: He sounded apologetic and turned slightly white.

    No need to explain nor dignify a body with shady integrity. It is a matter of interpretation and how bad the mindfarkers want to make it sound at the end of the day.

    Just stand by what you had said. No need to add to it or take away from it. Defend your privacy and right to opine.

    When they drag you into the mud, you have stayed away. That’s your call. When they go on the offensive, you state their offensiveness….
    A Lee will always be a Lee. If you are not willing to close rank and shut up, be an upright outcast then but don’t be a whitish banana.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Ah Fah:

    “Meanwhile, both Mr Li’s father and aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling have continued to remain silent over this latest development.”

    He is a big boy. Why should his father and aunt come to the school gate? Only his uncle gets his gang of ministers involved in their family matter.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • rukidding:

    Clap ! Clap !…my Hero !

    The Prince Charles of Slingapore !

    “Fights” like a TRUE WARRIOR !

    Not those “Chee Hong” or “Lan Hong” or “Por Lan Par” or “Boh Lan” or what ever kind of “Hong” or “Puthu Chery” or “Harry Kumar” or “Lee Beei What” ?s ???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Ah Fah:

    What is explained by Li Shengwu should have been done by Teo Soh Ling and Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss. Instead, SW was taken hostage by these lawyers. They demanded same treatment be applied on SW. I wonder if they now feel happier or might come out again and speak like opp members.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • N.Jungne:

    Nephew also tekan!:
    Who are we ordinary Singaporeans?

    Vote for a People’s President before it is too late!

    Response: The Linage is challenged.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan:

    Contempt of Court, pliant or compliant, everyone body knows what Li ShengWu is saying is the truth. Take the example of how a judge had chosen to interpret what an elected president actually meant from the government’s point of view. A judge should strictly worry about only the correctly application of the law and not about a government policy decision in Court.

    Contempt of Court is no big deal compared to the Contempt of the Constitution.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • AG Charmers...:

    You are fast becoming a big joke!

    Lead by ‘firebrand’ clowns?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Will Shengwu seek asylum?:

    Shengwu is in Harvard in the US. If AGC files charges against him he might seek asylum in the US so he does not have to come back. If he get asylum like Amos Yee it would be another big embarrassment for PAP.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Maxchewy:

    History tells us about the very rich and powerful families who seemed untouchable by anyone until internal family squabbles, usually over money and power, made their appearance. The most famous cases are the mafia families in Sicily and USA. The quarrel will escalate eventually till a family implosion breaks out ending with the eventual demise of the family fortune and power. How will the Lee squabble end? Your guess is as good as mine.
    But for sure LHL is still very sore with his siblings esp LHY who refuses to give in to his Koh-Koh despite the latter being the most powerful man in S’pore. Now that LHY’s beloved son has been fingered by LHL and his AGC to be summoned to court for contempt, there’s no hope of reconcialation of the 3 siblings any time soon. Perhaps never!
    There will be consequences for Singapore and all of us. Just wait and see!
    Where is S’pore heading? Down the slippery slope unless there is change of the leadership soon!
    Happy National Day to all my readers!
    MC
    6.8.17

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Maxchewy:

    AG must have waited for LHL to tell him NOT to take legal action against his nephew. That’s why there is quite a delay in AGC’s announcement. Since none was coming, he must have surmised legal action was called for and necessary. No need for LHL to get directly involved. His silence over a controversial issue speaks volumes!
    MC
    6.8.17

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • AGC go aftr APek of KopiTiam ?:

    Wah, the AristoCATS are going thru private postings . . .
    -
    “You shall not even have private negative thots against the AristoCATS. . .”???
    -
    Many A Peks yakking away at KopiTiam – never expressing “heart” for the AristoCATS . . .
    What will gov do? Monitor them using CCTV???
    -
    Oops, stand corrected !
    -
    CCTVs r already everywhere.
    They know when these A Peks go to toilets.
    -
    Are we now North K o r e a??? “Welcome.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAPSURELOSE!!!:

    Ah Fah:
    I regret reading Shengwu’s unauthorised and widely spread FB post…. Over my dead body, I hereby undertake to support Li Hongyi should he run for Prime Ministership.

    Please, everyone must apologise.

    Dear Singaporeans, the strategy is NOT for AGC to score points with their CluelessPM. It’s also NOT to sue LiSWu over these insignificant remarks. CluelessPM and his clan of UselessEunuchs know for sure LiSW would never compromise and delete his post.

    They want to create a climate of fear and bar LiSW from ever returning to S’pore. This is their master plan. LiSW can stay where he wants to which suits their purpose. The anointed Prince will create unnecessary competition for his cousin, lhyi. Eunuchsministers want to protect CluelessPM son.

    Fellow Sgporeans can you remember when HoShit went on sabbatical? Then she no picture no sound for a long time? Family squabbles of CluelessPM hoarding power and HoSHit went abover her authority had already begun. LKY saw through their evil intentions and tried to stop them. At 90 years old, what could a frail and weakening old man do?

    Fellow Sgporeans, remember when Trump “mistook” CluesLessPM for Indo Pres? Trump has always remembered the lame congratulatory speech from CluelessUselessPM. He may have “forgiven” but never forgotten. Payback time. For the whole world to see. Super siah suay.

    Fellow countrymen, with this government in control, locals/natives will never get a chance to upgrade and improve their lives. Eunuchscabinet and UselessCluessPissM love to suck foreigner balls.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • More 'Distractions' Coming!:

    Remain steadfast and vote with your conscience!

    Remember it is a PE and not a GE; there is no change in Gahment until the next GE!

    Hopefully there is no Walkover for PE 2017 or else it will be ‘gone case’ for Singapore!

    Li ShengWu, AHTC trial and some other cases will be there to ‘create chaos’ and affect how you vote, so be mindful and vote wisely!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • If 'Lao Lee' was around......:

    Nothing of this sort will happen!

    We are witnessing ‘climate change’ in Singapore!

    Vote wisely in September, Save Singapore before it is too late!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


MORE ON TR EMERITUS


Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement





Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement



Most Recent Comments
  • PAP has the mandate: It had always been LKY agenda to rule with an iron fist. Only daft stinkies will trust this evil...
  • Who dares win ?: Just wondering which legal firm in sg would be willing to or dare to represent SDP/Dr CJS? Thats...
  • Raffles Class Minister: Definitely NOT… what an insult to LKY!!!! He wanted to be GOD. Only GOD knows what we...
  • l'ingenieur: There arent even enough days of statutory leave to cover for MOE school holidays. Where can the children...
  • Neo: Sacrifice? ROFL. Sure… why not. Many had already been made living sacrifice willingly. Not believe? Ask...
  • "Nickels = ManHole Cover" ???: > “So, does it mean that this family will get only $60 of financial...
  • 李屎名: 吾皇萬歲, 萬萬岁 ,吾皇说二 ,你敢说一 !
  • Vote for A By-Election!: We can push for it by not voting the PAP endorsed candidate at the coming PE. This is the...
  • Titiana Ann Xavier: Every policy implemented by LKY was motivated by an unconcealed obsession to remain in power...
  • PATRIOT of TEMESAK: Rabble-rouser: Actually, HK & S’pore comparison is not even an Apple-to-Apple example....
Announcement
Support TR Emeritus
Support TR Emeritus:
Other Amount:
Advertisement
Advertisement
Free Classifieds
  • Providing IT Support Services and Repairs

    Wireless AP and Controllers Internet Access Serv...
    [Read more]

  • Sample of a Free Ad

    . This ia a sample of how a Free Ad (without imag...
    [Read more]

Readers Statistic
Latest Statistic