We little guys seem to have no say in this country as an article
from littelspeck suggests:
NKF...
And defamation
Saga shows this law can also protect influential wrongdoers from
public exposure. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jan 2, 2006
In good times and bad, Singapores stability has rested on a strong
legal system strictly enforced, including defamation laws that
prevent the sort of wild politics that exists elsewhere.
It has created a society where people dont make wild accusations
against each other as a result of a government frequently setting
the tone to sue offenders, big or small.
Since few citizens truly know what really constitutes defamation,
it has resulted in a society thats lavish with praise but short of
even the slightest attack on any influential entity, whatever the
circumstances.
An official spokesman recently reaffirmed that the Government
draws the ... conclusion that our libel law is what keeps the
system clean and honest.
This rationale has blurred somewhat in the wake of the National
Kidney Foundation scandal involving its former CEO T.T. Durai and
ex-board of directors, over which much has already been
written.
It raised a question whether the republics defamation law is also
apart from preventing the innocent from any slanderous assault
protecting wrongdoings by the rich and powerful from being
discovered.
Take the case of Madam Tan Kiat Noi. She was sued in 1999 for
accusing the NKF of paying ridiculously high bonuses to its
staff. At a time when his power was rising, the thin-skinned Durai
sued.
Mdm Tan settled by publicly apologising and paying S$50,000 in
damages as well as NKF's legal costs.
She wasnt the only victim. Two others, Archie Ong and Piragasum
Singavelu, suffered the same fate when they alleged that Durai had
travelled by first class on charity money.
Again he sued for defamation, forcing both to settle out of court,
pay damages and apologise. Ironically, these allegations, the high
bonuses and first class travels, were true as revealed by the
recent KPMG report.
Neither Durai nor NKF has apologised or tried to undo the injustice
to these people, which led an angry writer to say, What the NKF
saga has proved is that people who win defamation lawsuits may not
be innocent and those who lose may not be guilty.
Actually the courts could not be blamed since these cases never
reached any hearing. At fault was Singapores defamation law, which
clearly favours the rich and powerful.
Like most citizens, Durais three victims simply could not afford
to fight it out against a giant like NKF (with assets of S$240mil),
irrespective of right or wrong.
Durais victories had an impact in convincing the public into
believing that his outfit was properly run and its money was not
wasted.
Truth had become a casualty when the defamation law became a weapon
of the wealthy.
You dont often see a bricklayer suing a property tycoon for libel
or defamation, only the other way around. Even if he does and wins,
his compensation can be a lot smaller than a defamed business
leader.
Singapore is, of course, not an exception. Try suing Bill Gates for
whatever reason!
Lawyer Siew Kum Hong wrote, the defamation law is very skewed in
favour of the plaintiff.
He explained: It is one of the very few areas of law (in fact, the
only one that comes to mind readily), where the defendant has the
burden of proving his innocence.
The plaintiff only has to show that the defendant said or wrote
something about the plaintiff that would tend to make people think
less of the plaintiff. That is all he needs to do.
To win, the defendant must prove that what he said was true, or
that it was a fair comment on a matter of public interest, or that
the circumstances of the statement made it qualified for
instance, it was said in Parliament or on the witness stand. That
can be a real uphill task.
For Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, this law is crucial. If you
defame us, were prepared to sue you, go into witness box and be
cross-examined ... If you dont sue, repetition of the lie [makes
it credible]. It will be believed ...
He and other government leaders have successfully sued and won
defamation lawsuits against some of their critics, especially
opposition figures and the foreign media.
Its frequent use has contributed to the sort of litigious society
the government wants to avoid.
The law has also rendered whistle-blowing (an insider revealing a
grave wrongdoing) either in a government department or in a large
corporation a virtually suicidal task.
Because of the expenses, Singaporeans simply choose to turn a blind
eye when they see something radically wrong, and society is the
loser.
If any of Durais three victims had been able to afford a Senior
Counsel, the truth about the NKF could have been exposed earlier,
limiting the present damage.
A retired contractor who was hired to install Durais office
bathroom 10 years ago gave The Straits Times the first hint that
things were not really right.
He was quoted as saying that NKF was using a pricey German toilet
bowl and a gold-plated tap.
I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at
least S$1,000. It was crazy. Youre a charity using donors money,
huffed the man who was then a donor.
After his outburst, he was told to just do his job, but the taps
were eventually scaled down to an upmarket chrome-plated model.
He stopped donating from then on.
The defamation law remains in place to ensure orderliness in
Singapore but it serves better those who can afford a good lawyer
over those who cannot.
