It is an intriguing development. Blogger Leong Sze Hian settled his judgment debt and legal costs plus interests without coming out a single cent from his own pocket. Well, what can I say, he beat the system?
Altogether, it totalled $262,327.22. The legal cost alone came up to half of it - $129,327.22.
When you defame someone, or more rightly, when you are adjudged to have caused the Plaintiff quantifiable reputational loss in his claim against you, you pay for it. Yes, you, not someone else. Yes, from your own pocket, so you feel the pinch. Not from someone’s pocket, and in turn, you feel the vindication instead. And while PM Lee got his vindication from a sealed court judgement, Leong got his from a sealed public endorsement.
Thanks to online technology, the public contributed, regardless of amount given, and yesterday afternoon, his lawyer delivered a cashier’s order for the sum adjudged to PM Lee’s lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers.
Of some note, it is also the first time ST is publishing it, that is, the complete story or collection, up to every cent satisfied.
And it was delivered with its own tinge of sarcasm, a kind of backhand slap. The covering letter writes: -
“Your client will be aware that every cent of this amount was donated to our client by the people of Singapore in an epic demonstration of their condemnation and anger at your client’s use of the libel laws to silence and chill dissent. It was conduct unbefitting of a Prime Minister. The courageous citizens of Singapore were determined not to show your client the satisfaction of suing critics until their pants drop.”
Alas, there is more drama on display here than justice on the bench. If the law of defamation is to deter people from damaging the reputation of another, that is, in the mind of right-thinking members in society, then would Leong’s case be a lesson in the opposite direction? No or little deterrence?
I mean, what is the right-thinking members of society thinking about this case? Does the court represent them? In the end, who really got his fair share of comeuppance, the person who won the suit in the court of law or the person who pays the debt with the full support of the court of public opinion?
More relevantly, will this set a precedent of some public importance for future cases since the one who pays the piper may get the judgment that is music to his ear, but as it turns out, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, and she sang, and it was louder than the judicial chorus being played out in chambers? It’s chamber music vs town square flash mob, right?
Yet, a measured tone is advised. This may be unprecedented post-judgement, but I think we should have some tempered pauses in our so-called victory dance in the public square. For we are not generally called “right thinking members of society” for nothing.
You see, I choose to believe that the average wage earner don’t give indiscriminately. $260k takes more than a handful of them to give before the target is reached. I trust some discernment was exercised by the majority, and it was not completely a mob instinct here.
So, if you are a rebel without a cause, or a rebel faking a cause, I believe you’ll only hear coin-drops in your coffers. The support is unlikely to be forthcoming.
But in Leong’s case, I think many can identify with him. Here are some similarities: A Facebook user. A mindless share. And he’s not the only one. No comment offered. Withdrew within days, but no apology though.
Then, came the lawyers, the exercise of one’s rather selective freedom to sue, the legal suit commenced, the publicity, the trial, the public resources thrown in, and the judgment of $130k. This is followed by the demand to pay up, though the money will go to charity (and it is ironic that out of charity, it returns into her own hand. Charity paying charity).
When you add all that up, over a FB share without much consideration, which involves a leader of a country and a private citizen in a perceived culture of fear and oppression when it comes to freedom of expression, what you get is the tugging of heartstring in some quarter of society for a justice that they can better swallow.
The truth is, this is unlikely to be repeated for cases where the heart of justice in the courts resonates with the heart of justice in the public square; unless of course, public trust is eroded to such extent that everything becomes trigger happy for the disappointed or disillusioned right-thinking members of society.
Thankfully, we have not come to that stage yet, not by a long shot. And that is a good thing, because chaos should never be underestimated. Mind you, an unthinking fling with fire will eventually burn the whole house down.
And I am sure Leong would not want to go through all that again, even if he has received some level of public vindication.
Finally, on the Plaintiff’s side, it may be a case where one of the fangs of the defamation bite is disarmed with such public support, yet, it is nevertheless still a legal precedent set with a rustic signpost staked at the heart of a largely compliant electorate that reads: “Enter at your own risk”.
Now, who has the last laugh?
No comments:
Post a Comment