Workers'
Party argues against libel ruling
Associated Press. April 21, 1999.
RELATED:
Singapore
Court asked to wind up Workers' Party
Jeyaretnam faces bankruptcy court
again
Court finds Workers' Party article defamatory
SINGAPORE'S opposition Worker's Party argued in court on Wednesday
against a libel ruling that threatens to destroy the party.
The court deferred its judgment on the appeal by the Worker's Party, which faces closure for failing to pay more than S$510,000 in libel damages and legal costs stemming from a November 1998 High Court ruling.
If the Worker's Party is closed it would leave Singapore with only one opposition member in parliament, in which the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) holds 81 of 83 elected seats.
No date has been set for the verdict.
The High Court ruled in late November that the Worker's Party, its leader Joshua Jeyaretnam and another member, A. Balakrishnan, had defamed members of a committee which organised a Tamil Language Week in 1995.
The suit was filed by a member of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), R. Ravindran, and nine other people who said an article published in the the Worker's Party newsletter defamed them by calling them government stooges.
A lawyer for the plaintiff said after the appeal that both sides would seek to postpone a petition to wind up the Worker's Party until after the Court of Appeal makes its final verdict.
Opposition to Singapore's ruling government was put under the spotlight earlier this year after opposition politician Chee Soon Juan was found guilty in February of making an unlicensed speech.
He was fined S$2500 (US$1400) for the offence but refused to pay and opted for 12 days' in jail instead. Straits Times WP case adjourned indefinitely
On April 24 the Straits Times reported the petition to wind up the Workers' Party over a $511,643 debt owed by the party and two others to 10 committee members of the first Tamil Language Week was adjourned indefinitely yesterday.
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr Liew Teck Huat, asked for an adjournment as his clients were considering other options and they had instructed him to hold on to the petition.