Jeya appeal: QC Gray's arguments

There was no "elaborate conspiracy" between the Workers' Party chief and his election running-mate Tang Liang Hong to defame the Prime Minister, he said.

Mr Jeyaretnam was just acting as a messenger for Mr Tang, "passing on the message" to the crowd at the WP's final election rally on the eve of Polling Day, at Yio Chu Kang stadium.

Describing the WP chief's remarks as "neutral", the QC added that he had merely stated "the bare facts". He had no part in the "slagging match" between Mr Tang and the PAP. He had not revealed the contents of the police reports nor had he endorsed what Mr Tang had done. He also did not hint that Mr Goh was indeed guilty of criminal misconduct, as Mr Tang had alleged.

While both men stood "shoulder to shoulder" on some issues, they were not "singing from the same hymn sheet" over Mr Tang's allegations of criminal misconduct against Mr Goh, said the QC.

Therefore, Mr Jeyaretnam's remarks could not be defamatory, he maintained, as he asked the Appeals Court to overturn a High Court ruling in September, which found the WP chief guilty of defamation, and to cut the $20,000 damages awarded to a nominal sum.

QC Gray also noted that in his judgment, Justice S. Rajendran had dismissed the "conspiracy theory" put forward by the Prime Minister's senior counsel, Mr Davinder Singh, saying that the remarks were more of a concession by Mr Jeyaretnam to "give Mr Tang face".

In his judgment, Justice Rajendran said that the WP chief had not "acted in concert" with Mr Tang and had not said the words to incite the crowd, nor had he exploited the crowd's response. The tenor and context of his speech also did not suggest that the PAP was dishonest or its members guilty of criminal offences. So, he had not adopted the allegations made by Mr Tang in the police reports.

However, Mr Gray argued that Justice Rajendran seemed to "shrink from the logic of his own reasoning" and had lapsed into an error in judgment.

Despite agreeing that Mr Jeyaretnam had not endorsed Mr Tang's position, he ruled that because Mr Jeyaretnam had not dissociated himself from the allegations, he was thus suggesting to the crowds that the issue was grave enough for the police not to shrug it off.

Thus, said the judge, people "will come away with the impression that Mr Goh may have conducted himself in such a manner that it is possible that he will be investigated for some offence or another".

So, he ruled that the WP chief was guilty of defamation, but to a "lesser degree" than claimed by the Prime Minister's lawyers. But such an argument, Mr Gray said, was "pretty woolly".

"The fact that the judge was constrained to come up with so artificial and nebulous a meaning is the clearest demonstration that Mr Jeyaretnam's words lacked any defamatory imputation."

Addressing the issue of damages awarded, the QC said Mr Goh did not deserve more money, simply because he was the Prime Minister. He said he was astonished that Mr Goh, despite having won the case, should come to court "like Oliver Twist, asking for more". And, it would not be fair for the Appeals Court to raise the amount awarded to Mr Goh after just a one-day court hearing. The High Court judge, he noted, was right to deny Mr Goh 40 per cent of his costs because the Prime Minister had overstated his case, and had even suppressed the fact that he had leaked the police reports to the press.

Published in the Straits Times. April 28, 1998