No clear winners in libel showdown

ANALYSIS by Barry Porter in Singapore

AMID a flood of international publicity, the latest showdown between leaders of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and opposition Workers' Party leader Joshua Jeyaretnam developed beyond a libel trial into a test of Singapore's legal system.

There had been accusations both ahead of and during the trial that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and other PAP leaders were using the civil courts to crush the opposition, something they vehemently denied.

Mr Jeyaretnam yesterday expressed "dissatisfaction" at being found liable for defaming the Prime Minister and said he was contemplating an appeal.

Meanwhile, Mr Goh is hardly likely to have been delighted at receiving just a tenth of the S$200,000 (HK$1.01 million) total damages claimed, or seeing his legal team criticised so heavily in Mr Justice S. Rajendran's 142-page judgment released yesterday.

At the end of the day it would appear that neither side has come up with exactly what they wanted. Both have ended up winners and losers in different regards.

Mr Goh has ended up the moral victor in that his claim of defamation was upheld. However, the judge did add that his case had been "over-stated".

While Mr Jeyaretnam lost, the total damages payable should be low enough to keep him from bankruptcy - for the time being.

Should he be declared bankrupt, Mr Jeyaretnam would have to relinquish his treasured seat in Parliament, the only one currently held by his party.

Mr Justice Rajendran ruled that Mr Jeyaretnam had defamed Mr Goh by announcing to a rally on the eve of the recent general elections that a Workers' Party colleague, Tang Liang Hong, had filed a police report against the Prime Minister.

He said this action gave a "broad, negative impression" because it suggested Mr Goh had done something wrong. While Mr Jeyaretnam did not read out the police report, he had defamed the Prime Minister by innuendo because the crowd would have already known the contents of the report.

Both sides brought in top London libel lawyers to argue their cases in the trial, monitored by international human rights organisations.

Mr Jeyaretnam's lawyer, George Carman, QC, had charged that the case was politically motivated with the aim of bankrupting the veteran opposition politician.

Mr Goh and other PAP leaders strongly denied such claims, insisting they sued to preserve their integrity.

The judge awarded S$10,000 in aggravated damages to Mr Goh - on top of S$10,000 in general compensatory damages - partly because of the way the Prime Minister was cross-examined by Mr Jeyaretnam's counsel.

Mr Carman's cross-examination angered Mr Goh, who hinted he would sue if the same remarks were made out of court.