Another Lee Squabble

[burntrubber]

LOL. Wonder how that dog sounds like when it bark? Roof roof? Woof Woof? Bow Wow? Wang Wang?

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/ea...f-5658396.html

[hkh]

Nobody in his right mind would ever think that he can win the "state organ"..........

[Auratus]

Arrest him under ISA, sue him and slam him into jail. If not, how to prove to all, that his Uncle has the power?
It also shut LTK up, that own blood is never thicker than water.
Jailing LHY and LSF own blood is more painful than jailing the parents.
Dark clouds has been over this country too long, it has begin to rain.

[lenghan]

This has probably shifted the game into LHL's favour using the nephew as the "game changer"

[globalcookie]

Than it'll come obvious, big one jiak beh kway, jiak small one.... ha.... heads he lose, tails siblings win.

This whole saga, till date, only does more harm than good to him whenever anyone from his camp says anything. If he is smart, he will tell his follows to STFU! But apparently not. The sibling's camp kept getting the other side to react. Each reaction sinks the ship further.

[jwhtan]

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) filed an application in the High Court on Friday (Aug 4), to start committal proceedings against Mr Li Shengwu for contempt of court.
This was after Mr Li failed to take down a Facebook post which he put up on Jul 15, criticising the Singapore court system.
In its press release, the AGC reproduced the full post by Mr Li, who is the nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and eldest son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

The post, which was set to “friends only” in Facebook’s privacy settings, included a link to a 2010 editorial published by the New York Times, titled “Censored in Singapore.”
In the post, he wrote: “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.”
Mr Li’s Facebook post was republished widely in Singapore after it was posted, the AGC said

On Jul 21, the AGC issued a warning letter to Mr Li on Jul 21, asking him to “purge the contempt” by deleting the post from his Facebook page and other online platforms.

He was also asked to “issue and post prominently” on his Facebook page a written apology and undertaking drafted in the terms in the AGC’s letter.

The Jul 15 Facebook post was "an egregious and baseless attack on the Singapore Judiciary and constitutes an offence of contempt of court," the AGC said.
It added: "The clear meaning of the 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 case."
A copy of the letter was released together with the AGC's statement.

The AGC said it had given Mr Li until 5pm on Jul 28 to do this. But Mr Li wrote back a day before the deadline to request an extension until 5pm on Aug 4,
"so that (he) may seek advice and respond".

The AGC said it agreed to the 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,” said the AGC in its statement on Friday.

Mr Li, an academic at Harvard University, had earlier said on Friday that it was not his intention to attack the Singapore judiciary or
to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

“If my private post is read in context, it is evident that I did not attack the Singapore judiciary,” Mr Li wrote in a public post.
“Any criticism I made is of the Singapore government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press.”

“However, to avoid any misunderstanding of my original private post, I have amended the post so as to clarify my meaning,” he added.
The setting on that Facebook post remains private, meaning it cannot be viewed publicly.

[jwhtan]

[jwhtan]

[jwhtan]

Li Shengwu has made public his letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), stating his position that they have taken his comments in his earlier private Facebook post,
now subjected to legal proceedings, “completely out of context”.
On Aug. 4, the AGC had filed an application in the High Court for leave to commence committal proceedings against Li for contempt of court, in relation to his Facebook post.
This comes after AGC initially gave Li until 5pm on July 28 to apologise and remove his post.
Li requested an extension until 5pm on Aug. 4, which the AGC allowed, but he eventually did not accede to their requests.
Li is the eldest son of Lee Hsien Yang, and a nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
He earlier wrote a short Facebook post in response to the filing, and this was followed by his public posting of his 5 page, 31 paragraph letter.

Your letter dated 21 July 2017
1. 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.

2. 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.

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

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

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

6. 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…)

7. 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.

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

9. 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.”

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

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

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

18. 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.

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

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

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

24. 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.

25. 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.

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

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

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

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

Yours faithfully,
Li Shengwu

[jwhtan]

Mr Li Shengwu, who will face contempt of court proceedings for comments he made suggesting the city-state's courts were not independent,
said on Saturday (Aug 5) he would not be returning to Singapore.
The office of Singapore's attorney-general said on Friday it had filed an application to start contempt of court proceedings against Li, a US-based academic,
over a Facebook post he made on Jul 15. The legal move is the latest twist in a family feud over the fate of the late Lee Kuan Yew's house that gripped the nation last month.
Mr Li, nephew of PM Lee Hsien Loong and eldest son of Lee's brother, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, had described the Singapore Government as "litigious" and the courts as "pliant".
Li, 32, is currently a junior fellow at Harvard University and told Reuters he expected to commence an assistant professor position with the university in the fall of 2018.
He said he would seek to defend himself through legal representation in Singapore but would not be returning to the country.

"I have no intention of going back to Singapore. I have a happy life and a fulfilling job in the US," he told Reuters in an interview.

Mr Li on Saturday (Aug 5) also posted on Facebook his reply to AGC on Aug 4, reiterating that the Jul 15 post was set as private.
In his letter, he stated that an anonymous Facebook user posted publicly an unauthorised screen shot of his post.
"This user is not on my Facebook 'Friends' list," he said. "I do not know how this user obtained the screenshot of my private post."
To this latest post, the AGC replied on Saturday saying it received the document after the extended deadline of 5pm on Aug 4.
"The AGC notes that the document does not purport to comply with our letter of demand that Mr Li purge his contempt and apologise,
but will nonetheless place the document before the court."

It added that as the matter is now before the court, it will not be commenting further.

In a statement on Friday, the Attorney-General's Chambers said it had previously instructed Li to remove the post and
issue a letter of apology acknowledging that his comments about the judiciary were baseless.
It said Li had failed to meet those requirements by the stipulated deadline on Friday, which had been pushed back from Jul 28 at Li's request.
"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," the statement said.

POST AMENDED FOR CLARIFICATION
Earlier on Friday, Li said on Facebook he had amended his original Jul 15 post to clarify any misunderstandings.
However, he said he did not believe the post was in contempt of court.
Li's Jul 15 post was shared on a privacy setting that allows content to only be viewed by his Facebook friends. He said on Friday the intent of that post was to convey the
"international media were restricted in their ability to report" on a recent feud between PM Lee and his siblings "due to the litigious nature" of the government.
"It is not my intent to attack the Singapore judiciary or to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice," he said.

The public spat between the Lee siblings, children of Lee Kuan Yew, flared in June over the future of the family home and raised questions about governance in the city-state.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and sister Lee Wei Ling accused their elder brother of abusing his powers, prompting the prime minister to call a two-day debate during the parliament
session in July to "clear the air" over an issue that some people say has tarnished Singapore's image.