This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.
The following are points made by the Straits Times in its report on 4 November 2004 that are completely at variance to the proceedings in court the day before:
ST: Under cross-examination, Dr Chee admitted his fellowship ended on July 3.
Fact: Dr Chee had announced on this website on 2 March 2004 (readers can check the archive) that he would take up a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) from March to July this year.
ST: He also agreed that the impression he gave was that he would be away through the month of August.
Fact: In January 2004, Dr Chee wrote to the courts to inform it that he would be away from February to August 2004. How could Dr Chee have agreed [with Mr Singh] that the impression he gave… when he had written a letter to say exactly that he would be away until August? The report lied that Dr Chee had admitted to creating the impression when it was clear what Dr Chee had stated in his letter.
ST: Mr Singh sought to show that while Dr Chee said he was unable to attend the September hearings, he and his family found time to visit Hong Kong in August.
Fact: Dr Chee went to Hong Kong as part of an ARDA delegation to assess the political situation in the city prior to its Legislative Council elections. He traveled alone, his family was not with him.
ST: Mr Singh said one of the trips included one to Taiwan…
Fact: On his way back to Singapore from the US after the conclusion of his fellowship, Dr Chee and his family stopped over in Taiwan to break up the long journey because he was traveling with his children. It is a lie to say that “one of the trips included one to Taiwan…”
ST: Later in the report ST again writes that Mr Singh noted that that Dr Chee had consistently given the impression he would be away through August…
Fact: It must be repeated that Dr Chee had written to the courts not merely try to give the impression that he would be away through August.
ST: Asked by the Senior Counsel to explain what the unforeseen circumstances were, he cited the birth of his third child, tying up loose ends after his fellowship, and meeting in Taiwan. But Mr Singh retorted that neither of the first two could have been unforeseen.
Fact: Dr Chee had said that it was not the birth itself but the process of applying for the birth certificate of the baby and the passport in the US that he was referring to when he talked about the “unforeseen circumstances”. Mr Singh kept quiet following this. The ST censored this part.
This website will report more about the lies and misinformation of the court case involving Dr Chee and Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Stay tuned…