I am not sure what to make of this, but I am however sure, this
isn't the only case as with most things, there will always be those
un-reported ones...
So is there any 'safety net' in our system that vindicates the poor
who is Wrongfully Accused?
I wonder....
===================================================
Accused of being a drug addict, jobless ex-cleaner borrows
heavily for lawsuit to clear his name.
He claims: I WAS SHAMED IN
PUBLIC Everyone in mall saw police take me
away
By Tay Shi'an
January 28, 2007
HE was wrongly accused of taking drugs and suffered the shame of
being led away by police in a shopping mall filled with
people.
Mr Chan plans to take his ex-employer to court if there's a
settlement. He's prepared to accept two months salary as full and
final settlement. -- MOHD ISHAK, TAY SHIAN
The police apparently cleared him of any wrongdoing.
But that was not enough for former cleaner Johnny Chan, 49.
He has borrowed money from relatives and friends for a private
prosecution against his alleged accusers.
His lawyer has also written to his former employer claiming
compensation for wrongful dismissal.
However, the employer denies he was sacked as a result of the
arrest.
Mr Chan's parents have been standing by him and it is his mother
who borrowed - from her siblings and friends - most of the $3,000
he has spent so far in legal fees.
He and his parents had been living on his salary of $1,400 a month
before he lost his job 1⢠years ago.
He has not had a steady job since then.
Mr Chan claims he was wrongfully detained by three security guards
at a shopping mall in the western part of Singapore in August
2005.
The guards allegedly said Mr Chan was taking drugs and he was
allegedly kept in the security room until the police arrived.
Mr Chan has taken money from his mum and dad to fight the case.
They also borrowed money from their friends to help him.
His lawyer, who declined to be named, said Mr Chan was never
charged with any drug offences related to the incident. It is
believed his drug test following the arrest was negative.
"I took his case because his relative knows my secretary, who asked
me for help," said the lawyer.
"She also asked if I could accept a lower fee because they are
poor. So I've lowered the fees for him, to less than half the
usual...
"To him, it's still a big sum."
The cost has already exceeded the sum that Mr Chan is seeking to
claim from his former employer. But he said the cost is not
important.
"It's very tough, fighting two sets of lawyers. I know the legal
fees will pile up," Mr Chan said.
"But I want to prove my innocence. My friends tell me I have to by
all means go after them, and my brothers and sisters agree."
He has four siblings who are married and living separately.
Mr Chan, who is single and lives with his retired parents in a
three-room flat, said he was sent by his cleaning company to work
at a shopping mall as a cleaning supervisor.
According to court papers, three of the mall's security guards
allegedly restrained Mr Chan wrongfully around 10am on 1 Aug 2005,
after accusing him of consuming drugs.
NEWS SPREAD
Mr Chan still remembers vividly the shame he felt. "When I was
taken away by the police, the mall was fully functioning. Everyone
saw me, it was so embarrassing," he said.
He claims that he lost his job shortly after, and has had trouble
finding a job since. He said his most recent job was part-timing at
a fast-food restaurant.
He claimed: "The cleaning industry is so small, the news (of the
drug case) spread like cancer."
He tried going to the Legal Aid Bureau, but he was not eligible as
he had earned more than $10,000 in the previous 12 months. After he
found his current lawyer in September 2005, a magistrate's
complaint was lodged against the three security guards.
Said his lawyer: "The judge directed for an investigation to be
done by the police. But a few months later, the police decided not
to prosecute the three guards.
"My client (then) instructed me to commence the private
summons."
At least one of the three guards has hired a lawyer to fight the
case.
Those found guilty of wrongful confinement can be fined up to
$1,000 and jailed up to a year.
The lawyer also wrote to Mr Chan's ex-employer's law firm.
He said: "My client was prepared to accept two months' salary as
full and final settlement. But they only offered two weeks' salary
without admission of liability, which was not acceptable to my
client."
The cleaning company's director denied the claim of wrongful
dismissal, saying instead that it was Mr Chan who suddenly stopped
coming to work.
Mr Chan, in turn, denies that.
The lawyer said Mr Chan is planning to file a lawsuit against the
ex-employer if there's no settlement.
He said private summonses usually involve compoundable cases, which
usually do not result in jail sentences unless in exceptional
cases.
Said the lawyer: "If found guilty, the defendant is fined by the
state, and the money goes to the state. The client doesn't get
anything out of it."
He added that if they get convictions against the three guards, "we
will pursue damages for wrongful confinement in a civil
suit".
Mr Chan said that while he's determined to see the case through, he
he felt bad taking money from his parents, aged 71 and 68.
Said Mr Chan: "My mum and dad went around borrowing money from
friends. They went all the way out to help me get money to hire a
lawyer.
"I feel so bad, I'm supposed to be the one supporting them, but I'm
not even able to return the money to them."
ILL HEALTH
Both parents recently had health problems - his mother had cataract
surgery on her left eye a month ago, while his father had gastric
surgery about six months ago.
But his mother, Madam Kan Oh Ho, said in Mandarin: "He's my son. He
used to give us money when he had a job. Now, if we don't help him,
who will?"
