S'pore's PM fights opposition critics in court

Nick Cumming-Bruce reports on two British QC' part in the controversial defamation case brought over comments made by the ruling party's rivals during January's election campaign.

SINGAPORE'S prime minister faces questioning from a leading British QC today in a defamation trial that renews controversy over the republic's political leaders' use of the courts to hammer their critics.

The Singaporean leader, Goh Chok Tong, faces cross-examination by Georgia Carman QC, retained by J.B. Jeyaretnam, the 71-year-old Workers' Party leader, to help him fight a suit brought by Mr Goh and 10 colleagues, including the elder statesmen Lee Kuan Yew, the two deputy prime ministers, his son Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Tony Tan, and two ministers.

The suit against the opposition leader arose from an earlier battle that the ruling People's Action Party leaders fought with another Workers' Party member, Tang Liang Hong. They accused him of being a dangerous Chinese chauvinist. He called them liars and filed two police reports. They sued and were awarded more than 3.5 million (British pounds) damages.

The case hinges on a remark by Mr Jeyaretnam at the end of a rally on the eve of Singapore's early January election that was also attended by Mr Tang. "And finally," said Mr Jeyaretnam, "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to the police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team." Mr Jeyaretnam made no further reference to the police reports. Mr Goh and his colleagues charge that this remark was slanderous, that he must have know it would be reported in the media and so he should pay aggravated damages.

Mr Goh has brought in another prominent London silk, Tom Shields, also a specialist in libel, to act for him.

Expectations of an epic courtroom battle, and perhaps the kind of tough questioning Singapore's leaders rarely encounter, has scores queuing for a seat in the tiny court.

"Do you still want your half million," Mr Jeyaretnam called across to Mr Goh at the end of the opening day of the trial yesterday, in a reference to the damages he might face if he loses. "Well, if you want to pay me," replied Mr Goh, shaking the proffered hand.

The 11 cases against Mr Jeyaretnam will be hard consecutively over the next 10 days, but Mr Goh's, expected to last until Friday, is the test case expected to determine the findings in the others. Mr Jeyaretnam, is also too aware that opposition figures have never won any major legal battles against the government.

Amnesty International, which has sent the Canadian judge Paul Bentley as an observer, said yesterday it was concerned by reports that the Singapore government "has used civil defamation suits against political opponents in a manner that violates their right to freely hold and peacefully express their convictions".

Mr Carman doubted that any court could find Mr Jeyaretnam's comment defamatory. "It's an attempt to put a sinister construction on innocent words," he protested. "The inference is illegitimate, flimsy and ill-conceived."

Not so, countered Mr Shields. "This is a classic innuendo situation," he argued. Mr Tang, in numerous public speeches and interviews, has accused the prime minister and his colleagues of fabricating lies against him and, in effect, criminal defamation and criminal conspiracy. Mr Jeyaretnam knew there was no basis for such allegations and also knew the implication of his remarks, Mr Shields said. "No one is going to think more of someone if they are told he's been reported to the police," he noted. "The message is clear...he is standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr Tang."

The 11 cases are substantially the same but an application by Mr Jeyaretnam to have them amalgamated failed. As a result, should he lose, he could have to pay the bills of eight firms of solicitors acting for the PAP team as well as of Mr Shields. These could total well over 100,000 (British pound), far beyond Mr Jeyaretnam's known means. If made bankrupt, he would have to give up his seat in parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam draws some comfort from what he sees as the signs of discomfort among PAP leaders over his hiring of Mr Carman. Mr Lee, the senior minister, originally set to lead the PAP actions, contested the QC's admission to the case. Two days after the court allowed Mr Carman's appearance, the order of cases was changed to put Mr Goh first and Mr Lee last.

Mr Carman asked for an explanation and for the judge to change the order so that Mr Lee would come second at least. He was turned down.