Gopalan Nair's quickie press conference

Poh Ah Pak SG

No doubt you will hear it from formal news sources. Gopalan Nair, former Singaporean, now United States citizen, has been charged with another count of insulting a judge.

This makes two. Last week, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang through an email allegedly sent by him in late May 2008.

The new charge is really curious, relating as it does to an alleged email that is more than 2 years old. Said to be dated 17 March 2006, the judge involved was named as Lai Siu Chiu. Court documents quoted this sentence from the email: "The reason why (Lai) and her fellow judges punish and silence PAP critics is because judges are well paid and have comfortable lives."

Nair (photo right), in a hastily called press conference said that while he had been shown an email by the investigating officers, he does not know whether it was written by him or not. "I don't have access to my computer," he pointed out. His notebook had been seized by the police at the time he was first arrested, on or around 31 May. "My password is there" on the computer, he added.

At this stage, I don't intend to discuss this case. Facts are too scanty. Instead, what I'd like to provide readers with is a description of the press conference itself -- the story behind the story, as it were. How was the news that you'd read about the next day generated? Does it cost money to set up a press conference? How difficult is it for a private individual to get his story into the media?

* * * * *

I heard about the press conference when a reporter with whom I was scheduled to have lunch today called a little after 12 noon. She apologised profusely for having to cancel at the very last minute. "Gopalan Nair's calling at press conference at 2:30 pm," she explained. "He was given a second charge this morning."

However, since I had the time set aside for her anyway, I figured I might as well make my way to the same press conference.

"Where is it?" I asked.

"No. 23 Peck Seah Street. It's a coffeeshop."

When I got there about 2:20, I saw a small scrum of reporters sitting on stools sipping iced tea waiting for the show to begin. Straits Times, Today, Reuters, Channel NewsAsia and two more at least, were represented. There were photographers and video cameramen too.

Waiting....

It being warm and humid, I ordered a cold drink and sat to chat with the rest, alternating between what a reporter's life was like and ministers' statements pertaining to Gopalan Nair and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders. Naturally, what we said to each other must remain private, though I can say that there was a general air of levity and some gracious sharing of information.

Around 2:45, Nair, accompanied by his lawyer Chia Ti Lik and some supporters, arrived. They noticed us, but sat apart for a little while to complete whatever discussion they had ongoing.

Then they moved to a table near where we were and the press conference began. Chia provided some context through opening remarks about the morning's court proceedings and the additional charge.

Lawyer Chia Ti Lik (white shirt) providing some opening remarks

Thereafter, Nair read from a prepared statement, which you can see here on the SDP website.

As you can see, he defended his right to post articles on his blog regarding his observations of Singapore, particularly the recent trials (26 – 28 May 2008) involving SDP leaders Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin:

In the US where I come from, the judiciary just as any other government or official body is open to criticism and they accept it as necessary for the advancement and improvement of the administration of justice.

Referring to his blog postings,

As to the events that occurred during the 3 days in court, it is an accurate observation which I have stated under my right as a free man.

However,

It was never my intention to malign or cause distress to anyone and if the words that I had used had this effect, I withdraw them and apologize.

The reporters present would later ask him to clarify this point.

He repeated his critical observations of the court proceedings:

During the High Court hearing, I found Judge Belinda Ang to be completely unfair and prejudicial to the interests of Dr. Chee, Chee Siok Chin and the SDP. Almost every question put by Dr. Chee, Chee Siok Chin and Ravi on behalf of the SDP were disallowed and each and every question put up by the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew and his son were invariably allowed. Almost every objection raised by the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew was sustained, keeping in mind that the lawyer for Lee Kuan Yew and son, objected to almost every question that Dr. Chee and company raised.

To state plainly, Dr. Chee and his company was denied the right to cross-examine the Plaintiffs in any meaningful way. In fact we could go even further and say that he and Siok Chin were denied the right to cross-examine Lee and Son almost entirely. In fact if Dr. Chee managed to put any questions to Lee and Son, it was over the refusal of Judge Belinda Ang to allow the questions, so much so that Judge Belinda Ang had to repeatedly prevent Dr. Chee and Siok Chin from conducting any meaningful cross examination.

As most readers would know, Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin were subsequently jailed for contempt of court, the judge having found that they disobeyed her orders.

Nair's first charge related to an email he allegedly sent, that was considered insulting to Belinda Ang. However, he denies sending any such email. "I did not send to Belinda Ang or anyone else any email, as far as this incident is concerned," he reiterated later.

After reading his prepared statement, Nair took questions from the reporters present. At that point, I put down my camera and started taking notes. I will provide you, by way of example, three questions the reporters posed -– they posed many more -- and Nair's answers, to give readers a feel of the kinds of questions that followed.

Reporter: "What do you hope to achieve by offering an apology?"

Nair's reply was, "I only said if I used words somewhat more stinging than they should have been, I apologise. Perhaps I could have used more temperate language. I'm not apologising for the contents of my blog." He also added that it was only gentlemanly to offer an apology for harsh words.

Yawning Bread's observation: Which words exactly was he apologising for? He couldn't possibly be apologising for anything in the alleged email sent to Belinda Ang since he denies sending it. As for words in his blog, he has not been charged for anything written there, thus it's rather beside the point. So far, at least. But was this apology intended to fend off a possible defamation suit over the words he used in his blog?

One of the reporters present must have thought so too, for a little later, he asked,

QUOTE:

228. Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

UNQUOTE

I'm no lawyer, but the one element that strikes me as problematic is the condition "while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding". How sitting is sitting? Must he be physically in court? What if the insult was hurled during the evening when the case, while ongoing, was adjourned, and the judge himself was at the cinema? What if the insult was over a case unrelated to the ongoing case, say six months after the issue had been decided?

The proximal placing of the words "or causes any interruption" seems to suggest that this section was intended to be construed narrowly, meaning such outbursts, swear words, snide remarks or other disruptive behaviour in court, say from people in the public gallery, and not to shield judges and prosecutors from criticism about the way they discharge their duties.

Reporter: "Are you afraid of a defamation suit?"

Nair: "I am not afraid of any of those things. I'm a human being and human beings must have courage. I'm not a slave."

Reporter: "Are you prepared to serve a jail term?"

Nair: "One has no choice about such things. But do I regret doing what I did? No, not at all."

Gopalan Nair reading his prepared statement

* * * * *

The entire press conference took less than 45 minutes. After that, I sat chatting with Chia Ti Lik for 15- 30 minutes more, during which time, he received a call from the prosecutor. I'm told the latter expressed some displeasure that Gopalan Nair had gone to the media so quickly within hours of being charged.

Why would the prosecutor be unhappy? I can only speculate. One possibility is that once Gopalan Nair has publicised the second charge, it becomes extremely difficult for the government to withdraw the charge without looking weak. But if the prosecution case is not yet watertight, it puts them in a fix.

Another possibility is that by acting so quickly, and with technology compressing lead times for stories to get out, the government has to rush to ensure that its spin is integrated into the media story. Nair might have been seen as trying to preempt the official statement from the government. Then again, it may make no difference, at least not for the local media, for editors may wait till the government's side of the story is received..

On the right is Reuters' version of the story about the press conference, issued before the working day was over. That was the only report I could find this same evening.

The local media had no mention of Nair's press conference in any of their online "latest news" or "breaking news" sections. Channel NewsAsia's website had a brief story about the morning court hearing, but not about the afternoon's press conference or Nair's statement. Unfortunately, I was far from any television set in the evening, so I couldn't monitor the TV news.

With this background, it would be interesting to see what comes out in the Straits Times and Today on Friday, 13 June 2008.

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-895.htm