In the last general elections, Dr Chee had questioned, albeit vociferously, the prime minister and his senior colleague about a substantial loan offered to the discredited former Indonesian President Suharto during the Asian financial crisis by the Singapore government without parliamentary debate and the prior knowledge of the then Singapore President. As no local lawyer of stature was able or willing to represent him, he turned to Stuart Littlemore QC, an Australian specialist in defamation laws, who had the further advantage that he is not unfamiliar with Singapore's political labyrinths.

Dr Chee's crucial application to court for Littlemore QC's ad hoc admission to represent him as counsel at the trial predictably was denied by Justice Lai Kew Chai reportedly on the ground that Littlemore QC -- who had been sent by the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) to Singapore to observe the defamation trials and tribulations of the erstwhile, and now bankrupted, leader of the opposition Workers' Party, J.B. Jeyaretnam -- had, inter alia, criticized the Singapore judiciary in his official report to the ICJ, "shown contempt for ... and had been utterly disrespectful of the judiciary . [and] that he lacks manners, measure and maturity. ."

The denial of the application was not over Littlemore QC's legal qualifications, experience, or expertise in the specific area of the defamation law but that he had failed apparently to heed in essence the injunctions of Ms Emily Post: that well-known arbiter of good manners and behaviour, in his comments about the Singapore judiciary. That seems to be the pivot of the decision! Are his an isolated perception? Or do other court watchers also share them? In the final analysis, in what way are his considered observations to the ICJ pertinent areas of inquiry in this ad hoc application? Controversial decisions, alas, do not inspire respect for the judiciary. Indeed, it is judgment such as this that brings the Singapore courts into ridicule and contempt. As Rose E. Bird, the American jurist and chief justice, warned: "The more the courts are asked to handle political issues, the more their fragility is exposed."

Drawing on lessons learnt from previous defamation trials, the two government plaintiffs exuding sweet reasonableness this time left the squalid objection to the ad hoc admission of Stuart Littlemore QC to the trusty Attorney General and the subdued Law Society of Singapore: it not only deflects criticisms but also inhibits the wastage of political capital. The outcome would be still the same in any event! In conclusion, on a minute point of historical accuracy, the minister, who had asked for water and was served it in a teapot with cup and saucer on a tray, was Goh Chok Tong, and not the senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew, as stated. The other participants had also asked for water but were served it in drinking glasses. Perhaps, the court had run out of teapots, cups and saucers, and serving trays.

Francis T. Seow is the author of  To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew's Prison and The Media Enthralled: Singapore Revisited. His forthcoming book, Beyond Suspicion: The Singapore Courts on Trial -- a study of the use by Lee Kuan Yew of the courts as tools of repression -- will be published later in the year.

                                                            Home