<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Oct 14, 2008
DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST SDP AND ITS LEADERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>PM, MM get $950k damages
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Amount determined in part by 'egregious' conduct of the Chees </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Zakir Hussain
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE High Court has awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong $500,000 and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew $450,000 in damages against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and its leaders for defamation.
But nine of them had earlier settled with the Lees, apologising and paying each of them $170,000 altogether for the defamatory articles published in 2006 in the party newsletter, The New Democrat.
However, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, a member of the party's central executive committee, contested the suit.
They lost.
Yesterday, Justice Belinda Ang ordered the SDP and the Chees to pay PM Lee $330,000 and MM Lee $280,000.
The damages were aggravated by the 'egregious' conduct of the Chees, in particular during a three-day hearing to assess the amount at the end of May, Justice Ang wrote in a 157-page judgment.
The defamatory articles, published in the weeks leading up to the May 2006 General Election, had discussed the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) scandal and drew parallels between how the charity and the Government were run.
The Lees sued over its allegations that they were corrupt and had covered up wrongdoings at the NKF.
Justice Ang said that there was no doubt that the claims 'were the gravest imaginable'.
She detailed how the Chees, through their conduct before and during the hearing, had aggravated the injury to the Lees. They had persisted, without any foundation, in asserting that their libel was true when it was no longer open to them to prove the truth of or defend the claims.
Before the damages hearing, the Lees' lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier, had successfully applied to strike out affidavits, or sworn statements, by the Chees and former solicitor-general and opposition politician Francis Seow.
Justice Ang noted in her judgment that the affidavits were, among other things, irrelevant.
She also said that, during the damages hearing, the Chees had gone about cross-examining PM Lee and MM Lee in an 'insulting and annoying' manner, including over matters that had been struck out.
The Chees' motives were clear: they aimed to bring into view their political grievances at a highly publicised hearing, she added.Their objective was to use the hearing 'as a platform to indict a political regime; discredit, insult, humiliate and embarrass the Lees and denigrate the judiciary'.
During their cross-examination of PM Lee and MM Lee, the Chees had raised a range of matters including freedom of speech, Singapore's electoral system, detention under the Internal Security Act, nepotism, HDB flat prices and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
Justice Ang noted that these issues were outside the scope of the libel as well as the issue of damages.
At no point did the Chees elicit any facts to challenge or undermine the Lees' case for substantial damages, she said.
Justice Ang said in assessing the damages that she had also taken into account the standing of the Lees and the malice displayed towards them by the Chees.
That the Chees did not refute four SDP committee members' assertion that the libellous articles were published without their knowledge 'pointed to the strong desire' of the Chees to wound the Lees' political reputation, she added.
The Chees had also tried to drag out court proceedings by, among other things, filing a 'baseless' application to challenge the constitutionality of the Lees' application for summary judgment in 2006, and by walking out of court at that hearing.
Justice Ang also addressed SDP lawyer M Ravi's proposal of nominal damages of 50 cents, as he contended that the Lees' reputations remained good despite the libel.
This argument, said Justice Ang, had been made before and found to be false.
She noted, however, she did not overlook Justice L.P. Thean's caution in an earlier case that damages awarded for defamation must not be exorbitant.
'At the same time, I am mindful that the damages in the present case must be set at a level that is commensurate with and proportionate to the gravity of the libel and the egregious behaviour of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin,' she said.
'One must not be left with the impression that libel is 'cheap' based on the level of award ordered.'
The Chee siblings are bankrupt. If the SDP is unable to pay, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of being wound up, a fate it noted on its website yesterday.
They have one month to appeal the award of damages. [email protected]
DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST SDP AND ITS LEADERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>PM, MM get $950k damages
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Amount determined in part by 'egregious' conduct of the Chees </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Zakir Hussain
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE High Court has awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong $500,000 and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew $450,000 in damages against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and its leaders for defamation.
But nine of them had earlier settled with the Lees, apologising and paying each of them $170,000 altogether for the defamatory articles published in 2006 in the party newsletter, The New Democrat.
However, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, a member of the party's central executive committee, contested the suit.
They lost.
Yesterday, Justice Belinda Ang ordered the SDP and the Chees to pay PM Lee $330,000 and MM Lee $280,000.
The damages were aggravated by the 'egregious' conduct of the Chees, in particular during a three-day hearing to assess the amount at the end of May, Justice Ang wrote in a 157-page judgment.
The defamatory articles, published in the weeks leading up to the May 2006 General Election, had discussed the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) scandal and drew parallels between how the charity and the Government were run.
The Lees sued over its allegations that they were corrupt and had covered up wrongdoings at the NKF.
Justice Ang said that there was no doubt that the claims 'were the gravest imaginable'.
She detailed how the Chees, through their conduct before and during the hearing, had aggravated the injury to the Lees. They had persisted, without any foundation, in asserting that their libel was true when it was no longer open to them to prove the truth of or defend the claims.
Before the damages hearing, the Lees' lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier, had successfully applied to strike out affidavits, or sworn statements, by the Chees and former solicitor-general and opposition politician Francis Seow.
Justice Ang noted in her judgment that the affidavits were, among other things, irrelevant.
She also said that, during the damages hearing, the Chees had gone about cross-examining PM Lee and MM Lee in an 'insulting and annoying' manner, including over matters that had been struck out.
The Chees' motives were clear: they aimed to bring into view their political grievances at a highly publicised hearing, she added.Their objective was to use the hearing 'as a platform to indict a political regime; discredit, insult, humiliate and embarrass the Lees and denigrate the judiciary'.
During their cross-examination of PM Lee and MM Lee, the Chees had raised a range of matters including freedom of speech, Singapore's electoral system, detention under the Internal Security Act, nepotism, HDB flat prices and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
Justice Ang noted that these issues were outside the scope of the libel as well as the issue of damages.
At no point did the Chees elicit any facts to challenge or undermine the Lees' case for substantial damages, she said.
Justice Ang said in assessing the damages that she had also taken into account the standing of the Lees and the malice displayed towards them by the Chees.
That the Chees did not refute four SDP committee members' assertion that the libellous articles were published without their knowledge 'pointed to the strong desire' of the Chees to wound the Lees' political reputation, she added.
The Chees had also tried to drag out court proceedings by, among other things, filing a 'baseless' application to challenge the constitutionality of the Lees' application for summary judgment in 2006, and by walking out of court at that hearing.
Justice Ang also addressed SDP lawyer M Ravi's proposal of nominal damages of 50 cents, as he contended that the Lees' reputations remained good despite the libel.
This argument, said Justice Ang, had been made before and found to be false.
She noted, however, she did not overlook Justice L.P. Thean's caution in an earlier case that damages awarded for defamation must not be exorbitant.
'At the same time, I am mindful that the damages in the present case must be set at a level that is commensurate with and proportionate to the gravity of the libel and the egregious behaviour of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin,' she said.
'One must not be left with the impression that libel is 'cheap' based on the level of award ordered.'
The Chee siblings are bankrupt. If the SDP is unable to pay, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of being wound up, a fate it noted on its website yesterday.
They have one month to appeal the award of damages. [email protected]
