Singapore rebuts Littlemore's allegations

THE Singapore government has rebutted, point by point, the allegations raised by Queen's Counsel Stuart Littlemore, calling him a hypocrite and accusing him of making false and misleading statements.

The Australian QC was also dishonest and guilty of contempt of court, a statement from the Law Ministry said yesterday, answering points made in his report to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on Oct 1 and his letter to the Straits Times on Oct 6.

He was ICJ's observer during a week-long hearing in August in the defamation suits by 11 People's Action Party leaders against Workers' Party chief J.B. Jeyaretnam.

In a 10-page report, he accused the Singapore High Court of being compliant and bowing to Government pressure.

In his Oct 6 letter, he compared the average $570,000 defamation awards to PAP plaintiffs and that for other people at less than $45,000, inviting impartial readers to draw their conclusions from the comparison.

On his point that the Singapore leadership used libel actions to stifle free speech and remove political opponents, the Law Ministry noted that Mr Littlemore himself had used defamation, or the threat of proceedings, to silence his own critics.

"Mr Littlemore pretends to champion the cause against defamation actions. He is a hypocrite," it said.

The ministry described as false and a contempt of court his allegation that the Singapore courts had aided the PAP leadership in silencing its opponents by awarding unconscionably high damages to PAP plaintiffs.

It also corrected his remark that an opposition election candidate, who was a retiree, had to sell his home to pay damages of $200,000 to PAP plaintiffs.

Mr Wee Han Kim, the ministry said, was not a retiree but a member of the Singapore Bar who, as a lawyer, knew he had no defence and thus agreed to pay the damages.

Mr Littlemore had also said Justice Chao Hick Tin was listed to hear the action against Mr Jeyaretnam, but was replaced after the government was unhappy with him for allowing the latter to apply for a QC.

This was untrue, said the ministry.

Justice Chao was not listed to try the action and the government had never expressed any displeasure about Justice Chao's decision to admit a QC. In fact, it added, it had no say as to which judge should try a case.

The ministry also noted that Mr Littlemore had said the judge showed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong "undue preference" by awarding aggravated damages although no evidence was given to prove his reputation was hurt.

To this, the ministry said offensive and irrelevant cross-examination was an established ground for awarding aggravated damages. "It is basic law that if libel is proved, injury to reputation is presumed and no evidence is required. Any law student knows that."