Lee vs Leong - Defamation Saga I.

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?

 

Lee vs. Leong - Defamation II.

 

When Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said “it was “absurd” to suggest that about 2,000 contributors to a fundraising campaign constituted a “public backlash” to the libel laws,”” I felt that he had a point but only to a certain extent. 

Maybe the silent majority agrees with him. But “absurd” is a strong word, and it is part-truth, part-bravado (imho). 

In terms of that part about bravado, it somehow came close to the chest-beating hollerings of blogger Leong Sze Hian, when he said that people will stop him at the street and stuff money into his pockets. “It’s like the fear seems to be turning into anger and jubilance,” so trumpets Leong. 

In politics nowadays, trust and humility are the key words. And you do not want to underestimate what 2000 people can do in an environment that is as volatile as it is now. History has shown us that at the right time, it only takes one to change the world. 

By the way, Gideon had 300, and who can forget the 300 spartans who stood against insurmoutable odds and inspired a nation. Their bravery and sacrifices were immortalised. It only takes a spark and the right condition to get the all-consuming fire going. 

Going back to Minister Shanmugam, he yesterday attended the Home Team Promotion Ceremony. He was jubilant about the public perception survey done in 2020, which shows that “92 per cent said that (the home team officers) performed well and kept Singapore safe and secure.” 

He said: “I am proud of how our Home Team Officers responded to Covid-19, while maintaining operational excellence.” 

Well, kudos to them all. We as Singaporeans are deeply appreciative too. That said, safety and security are one part of the picture, no doubt pivotal at this time, and the other part is the character of leadership. That is where trust and humility come in. And we must be careful how, in our words and conduct, we may be perceived by the public, even if it is just 2000, or even lesser than that. 

Minister Shanmugam is right to say that “Singaporeans, like those in many other countries, are free to, and do, discuss politics, criticize politicians and policies.” And indeed, false, scurrilous speech cannot qualify for any protection. 

But that crowdfunding exercise can be a galvanizing force, though boiling on the surface, yet with deeper roots than we would want to admit it. It at least makes visible the disgruntlement of a section of society, thanks to online technology that tends to amplify dissent or magnify goodwill. And what is visible is more prone to be easily exploited for political brownie points. 

We may treat it as an outlier by the numbers, but it is still bush fire waiting for the right condition(s) to either set itself off or lend its flame to contribute to other budding fires nearby. 

Leong’s defamation suit is about a mindless share on FB, duly withdrawn, and TOC’s Terry’s suit is about an article containing allegedly false statements concerning the Oxley saga. These statements were quotes by PM Lee’s siblings. 

The common thread that runs in the two cases in my view is that they were singled out by the Plaintiff because Leong and Terry had more social and media influence than the others. It seems like it’s a tactical move to shut the dam at its source rather than to fight the flood at the mouth of the river. 

So, yes, everyone has a private right to defend his or her reputation, but even in mounting such a defence, we can’t control what a success in the suit would translate into when it comes to one’s reputation as a whole or in the long run. We may have achieved some form of deterrence, which may come by way of calculated fear, but at what cost to public perception then?

Mind you, at times, overlooking a wrong can do more to advance one’s goodwill than squashing it with a legal sledgehammer. We must not forget that there is a draconian aspect to such defamation suits. Our history has shown that it often crushes the one who loses while the winner gets to plonk the spoils into the arms of charity. 

Unfortunately, my experience with leadership in general is that the higher they climb or are positioned, the lower they tend to go when it comes to making others not forget about how different they are from the rest in stature, intelligence and power. That tendency sadly risks undermining trust and humility. That kind of erosion might just lead to more “absurd” results in the long run. 

Just some food for thought.

 

The Lust of Medication.

 

Dr Julian Ong (“Dr Ong”) won his appeal against one Serene Tiong (“Serene”). Dr Ong is a private colorectal surgeon. But the appeal, I guess, was a victory for another doctor too, a psychiatrist at SGH, Dr Chan Herng Nieng (“Dr Chan”). 

Let me flesh out the case for you this Sunday morning. 

The successful appeal means that Dr Ong got the judgment below overturned. The judgment below was the dismissal of his defamation suit against Serene who accused the two doctors of “taking advantage of, and using their positions to “source” and “groom” vulnerable female patients and colleagues for sex.””

On appeal, the high court judge felt that one of Serene’s accusations was not made out and the other did not qualify on purely technical ground. I will explain the second one later. But here is the first accusation, which concerns Serene herself.

Judge See “did not accept the district judge’s findings that (Serene) was one of Dr Chan’s vulnerable female patients, noting that she already had an intimate relationship with him before he provided her with Xanax for her anxiety.”

As such, there was no collusion between the two doctors to take advantage of Serene as a vulnerable patient because she already had an extramarital affair with Dr Chan before she was his patient.

Now comes the second accusation, this concerns another patient. Here is the twist. 

Unlike the first accusation, Judge See however accepted the district judge’s finding that “what Dr Ong did in giving the telephone number of one his patients, referred to as K, to Dr Chan for him to “try his luck at getting her to have sex” was tantamount to colluding to take advantage of K””. 

With that, you may ask, shouldn’t the defamation suit (by Dr Ong) against Serene fail? For there is no defamation if the accusation is true right? Not so fast. 

Judge See said that “K was one patient, and (that one case) does not constitute vulnerable patients in plural.” 

One therefore doesn’t cut it. Or one case does not a charge make. And therefore, the accusation was not made out, on a technicality. It was a technicality that is largely grammatical, dealing with the plural and the singular verb. 

To be thorough, Serene did accuse them of taking advantage of four other women colleagues, but Justice See noted that “the two could not be proven as colleagues, and the other two were not a “potential target of collusion.”” 

So, after all’s said, you take your victim or case where they have fallen, and for Dr Ong’s suit, he had his day in the appellate court and won. That should be all’s well for the doctors right? Well, not so fast. 

Justice See may have handed Dr Ong the judgment he wanted by overturning the lower court’s decision, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, he said. I will explain why later, but here’s an interlude for consideration. 

For those law students reading this, it is a good case where morality and the law depart ways - at least for this aspect of their journey towards justice. For even where there is provable evidential inference via text messages between the two doctors that they had taken advantage of a vulnerable patient, or at the very least, violated her trust, and mind you, this is also a tale of extramarital affair, as an aside point, Dr Ong still won the defamation suit because the law is strict when it comes to proving your defence of justification, that is, that what you said or accused of them is true as a defence. 

So, if your accusation deals with more than one patient, and no more than one patient is proven in court, then, your defence of “vulnerable patients” with an “s” fails. 

Yes, the law judicially splits hair over the singular and the plural. But this, of course, does not prevent further investigation into other probable improprieties committed by the doctor or doctors, as Justice See said, “Dr Chan’s admission to touching his colleague inappropriately in the past “may be a matter for the SMC to consider looking into further.””

So, let me end here with three lessons. 

First, Justice See said that “the only pattern revealed is that the two doctors were consummate opportunists, constantly looking out for women with sex in mind.” 

Well, one may be vindicated in the court of law, yet the vindication that comes for the soul of men goes beyond the remedy of the court. Even equity applied by the firmest hand of justice cannot strengthen the roots of a wayward soul. 

Truly, morality matters because, for all the conquests in this world, the greatest is still the battle of a lifetime to overcome the one within. 

Second, Justice See also said, “They are perfectly competent doctors and their sex lives are, of course, private matters. But their blatant treatment of women as sex objects sullies whatever professional reputation they might have built up for themselves.”

Proverbs 22:1 reads: “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold.” That’s true, because “the memory of the righteous is always a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.” 

We are all fallen, in our own ways. In a world where the pursuit of wealth and fame is endless, the preservation of one’s name is always timely, and timeless. 

We want to leave this world with a legacy to pass down to our children, a legacy that shines in the darkness and not one that contributes to it. And a good name is that city on the hill we leave behind, to light the way for our loved ones to follow. 

Lastly, Justice See said, “(their) smug boasts of their trysts with various women, as well as the demeaning terms in which they gloatingly describe their sexual conquests, speak to their true character.” 

Well, it is said that character is the sure foundation of all worthwhile success. And redemption, if I may add, is the cornerstone one lays to stabilise his shaky foundation. 

Truly, in this journey of constant stumbles and falls, character’s best companion is his endearing brother of remorse and change. And I hope this is one lesson the doctors will always bear in mind and in their hearts. Have a blessed Sunday.