International Commission Of Jurists

Letter to the deputy secretary, Ministry of Law

Mr Lau Wah Ming,
Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Law,
100 High St,
Singapore 179434
Republic of Singapore

21 October 1997

Dear Mr Lau Wah Ming,.

Thank you for forwarding copies of the Ministry's three press statements concerning the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) trial observer's report relating to the recent defamation action brought by your Prime Minister's against Mr J B Jeyaretnam.

Trial observation has been a long standing method of work for the ICJ in fulfilling its mandate of promoting the understanding and the observance of the Rule of Law and the legal protection of human rights around the world. This trial became of interest to the ICJ as it was an example of government members initiating defamation proceedings against members of the opposition.

The report of the ICJ observer, is an objective record of what he observed during the course of the trial and during his visit to Singapore. I note that the Ministry's press releases, while appearing to quote from our observer's report, have in fact not done so. Furthermore, the majority of the statements attributed to our observer are false and misleading. Consequently, we take exception to the inferences that your Ministry has drawn against our observer. This trial is of interest to the people of Singapore who have a night and expectation to receive objective and fair comment concerning the trial. For these reasons we have made available the report of our observer which identifies the major issues which cause us concern. Your Minister and your Ministry, similarly have a duty to issue objective and impartial information to the people of your country, particularly where actions such as these are brought by the litigants in their personal capacity.

Before I comment on the various issues you have made I would like to make a general comment about the ICJ's concern about defamation proceeding such as these. As you would be aware Article 19 of the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights) provides that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion ant expression" and that this right includes the right to seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers". The right extends to members of political parties. At the same time, Article 21(1) provides that "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his county, directly or through freely chosen representatives." It is in the context of these two articles that the ICJ believes that the availability of defamation proceedings relating to statements, made non maliciously in circumstances such as these may amount to an abuse of the Rule of Law. The public have a right to be informed and candidates must feel free to be able to provide relevant information on issues of public interest. Each individual member of the public. will then be in a position to decide which candidate he /she will support.

In relation to the issues you have raised-concerning our observer's report I would make the- following comments. I have restricted my comments to the Ministry's press statement of 12 October 1997, which seems to incorporate the issues raised in the earlier press releases:

1. Use of libel actions by Singapore leadership and role of the Singapore Courts

It is false to say that our observer asserted "That the Singapore leadership uses libel actions to stifle free speech and political debate and to remove political opponents". There is no such statement in the report. Neither does the report to the ICJ contain the second statement you attribute to our observer - "That the Singapore Courts have aided the PAP leadership in silencing its opponents by awarding unconscionably high damages to PAP plaintiffs."

At paragraph 1.4 of his report, our observer states:

Singapore 's leadership has a longstanding reputation for using defamation actions as a mechanism for removing opposition members from the Singapore parliament: far from tolerating critical remarks (not even those spoken or written in the heat of an election campaign), Messrs Goh and Lee have been swift to commence actions, to succeed with them, and to obtain such unconscionably high damages (and costs) as to bankrupt their opponents.

This statement is supported by Court records of defamation proceedings brought in Singapore (see paragraphs 1.5 to 1.8 of the report).

The Court records incorporated in the report were supplied by the Registrar of the Singapore High Court and, I have no doubt, are as he stated them to be - comprehensive and accurate. There can be no dispute as to the number of PAP plaintiffs, the number of times they have succeeded in their claims and the amount of damages that was awarded in each case.

2. Out of Court Settlement

You have correctly reflected what our observer stated in paragraph 1.8 of his report concerning a case that was settled out of court. The details, other than those reported were given to our observer on a confidential basis. Our observer was not referring to Mr Wee's case.

3. Application for a QC

Our observer did not state that "Mr Jeyaretnam had difficulty obtaining a QC to represent him as he had to show that the defamation case was sufficiently difficult and complex. to warrant a QC while the PM was allowed one unopposed". Your version, would appear to be deliberately false and mischievous

Paragraph 1.9 of our observer's report states:

This is a factually correct statement of what occurred, However, the statement you have attributed to our observer on page 3 of your press release is a serious distortion of this. Yet your comments in paragraph 9 of the press release are in accordance with the statement in our observer's report.

4. Appointment of trial Judge

Again, your press release misrepresents what out observer wrote.

In paragraph 42, relating to the appointment of the trial Judge, our observer expressly states:

The High Court Registrar, however, has said that the trial judge was assigned to the case, routinely, by himself and the Chief Justice.

Again through the selective use of statements from out observer's report the Ministry has presented the people of Singapore with a false impression

5. Presence in Court of counsel for the remaining 10 plaintiffs

Paragraph 5.3 of our observer's report gives a factual account of the position adopted, during the hearing, by counsel for the remaining 10 plaintiffs. The observer, in his capacity as an expert in such cases, also expresses his opinion on possible tactics behind their position. The statement that your Ministry has attributed to our observer on page four of the press release is again misleading. However, what is of greater concern is that your Ministry, in its press release, has also chosen to comment on possible tactics adopted by the plaintiffs, even though each of them have initiated proceedings in their personal . capacity.

6. Media Reports

I again stress that paragraph 7.1 of our observer's report reflects what he observed and the issues raised in this paragraph cause us considerable concern, I note your Ministry has not taken issue with the possibility of there having been a contempt of court.

The relationship between , the media and the judiciary in a democratic society has been of ongoing concern to the ICJ and its Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL). In 1995, the CIJL Yearbook was devoted to this topic, a copy of which is enclosed in the original of this letter.

7. Prime Minister served with pot of tea

In paragraph 9.2 of our observer's report he reports what he saw. I note that your Ministry press statements have made no mention of the final wolds in paragraph 9.2 of our observer's report, where he states "... but the event probably had more to do with the court attendant's priorities than anything sinister."

Not being privy to what arrangements may have been made between counsel for Mr Goh and the Court, our observer assumed that the tea pot which was served to Mr Goh in fact contained tea. I am sure you would agree any other ordinary person in the court, not aware that Mr Goh did not drink tea and not privy to the arrangements, would have made the same assumption.

We welcome all courtesies that are extended to litigants, regardless of their position, who give evidence before a court

8. Questioning by Mr Carman of Mr Goh

With respect I suggest you read paragraph 9.4 of our observer's report where he explains clearly and carefully that the judge stated that he would not allow certain questions to be put to Mr Goh. He then states: "Almost immediately, Shields QC intervened to tell Ranjendra J that he did not object to the questions on the subject that the judge had said he would not permit; but that the question ought to be rephrased because of its form." What is not contained in our observer's report is the statement you have attributed to him on page six of your press release.

9. Reservation of Decision of the Court

I note that in paragraph 9.5 of our observer's report he expresses his opinion, and that of others, that he trial judge should have been able to hand down a decision at the conclusion of submissions by both counsel. What your Ministry's press release, fails to include is the last part of this paragraph where our observer states: "...but other saw the delay as quite normal"

10. Finding of Defamation

In paragraph 10 and 11 of our observer's report, he gives a detailed summary of the judgement. Again the statements in the Ministry's press release do not reflect what our observer has in fact stated. In light of Mr Goh's lodgement of a notice of appeal it would be inappropriate for me to comment further than that which is contained in our observer's report which is in line with the judgement.

11. Damages

Paragraphs 11.1.14 to 11.1,18 of our observer's report gives a summary of the judgement in respect of the damages awarded. For the reasons stated above, it is inappropriate for me to comment beyond what is stated in the report of our observer, which is in line with the judgement

In summary, it is our view that defamation proceedings in cases such as these should not be available as they hinder the right to freedom of expression and the right of the people of Singapore to be fully informed so that they can take part in the government of Singapore through their freely elected representatives.

A copy of this letter has been made available to the press.

Yours sincerely
(signed)

Adama Dieng
Secretary- General