By Andrew Loh – 

In April, faced with a letter of demand from a statutory board for emails she had sent out, Ms Han Hui Hui, 21, turned to the courts to declare that a governmental body has no right to sue for defamation.

In its letter then, the Council of Private Education (CPE), the statutory board in question, demanded that Ms Han refrained from further publication of the alleged defamatory emails, and to make a public apology, or face legal action.

That was when Ms Han turned to the courts with the help of her lawyer, M Ravi, to seek a declaration that the CPE “being a government body with corporate status does not have a right to sue for defamation or threaten to sue for defamation under common law.”

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) later joined in as an “intervening party” on the side of the CPE, in the matter.

The CPE, represented by Allen and Gledhill, argued that the CPE was not a governmental body. “The starting point must be that CPE is separate and distinct from the Government,” it said. “The ‘Government’ does not include statutory bodies established under Acts of Parliament….”

It also said that according to the Private Education Act, the CPE is a “body corporate” capable of suing and being sued.

In any case, it said “the issue of whether a statutory board such as the CPE ought to have a right to sue or threaten to sue for defamation should be determined by Parliament, rather than the Courts.”

In his submissions, M Ravi argued that the CPE’s roles went beyond that of any private institution. “The Defendant is not an educational institution, but a regulator and accreditor of educational institutions,” M Ravi said. “This is a critical distinction.”

He also argued that the issue is not whether a defamatory statement could cause harm to the governmental body, as the CPE had claimed. Instead, he said, it is whether the prospect of defamation proceedings constitutes a limitation on free and open scrutiny and criticism of a governmental body, such as the CPE.

Freedom to criticise

He cited the 1993 case of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and others in the United Kingdom.

In that case, the County Council wanted to sue the papers for defamation over the “propriety of certain investments made by the council in administering its superannuation fund.” In their judgement, the House of Lords declared:

“It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.”

M Ravi also cited the 2006 case of the Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills and Terry Alyman v. Al J. Kerouac, where the Corporation wanted to sue Kerouac, the editor of the Halton Herald newspaper.

In his judgement, Justice Corbett J said:

“When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the courts. The government may not imprison, or fine, or sue, those who criticize it. The government may respond. This is fundamental. Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force.”

It is a principle, M Ravi says, adhered to by most Commonwealth countries. “The weight of authority in the Commonwealth (of which Singapore is a member),” he said, “appears to be leading towards an acceptance of the principle that governmental bodies are subject to open criticism free from risk of defamation suits.”

Case settled

Now, however, Ms Han’s case will no longer be heard in the courts as she has accepted the CPE’s settlement offer on 8 October.

The offer, unsolicited by Ms Han, was based on conditions that it is made “without any admission to liability” and “without prejudice” to the CPE.

Among the conditions, the CPE said it would not be seeking costs, and it “undertakes and agrees not to commence legal proceedings (including defamation proceedings)” against Ms Han, if she accepted the settlement.

According to the Straits Times on 9 October, the CPE said in a statement that “it would not be taking further action on this matter, because Ms Han had closed her blog and Facebook page on April 24 this year.”

When contacted, however, Ms Han said she had never closed down her blog or her Facebook page and that they have always been active and available.

Amend the Defamation Act?

In a statement released after the settlement, M Ravi said that according to the Derbyshire principle, “individuals should be free to criticise government institutions and their agencies without fear of being sued for defamation” and that this has been adopted in many countries, including the UK, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and Malaysia.

“In the United States, this principle has stood for nearly a century,” M Ravi said.

“I hope that Parliament will act soon to amend the Defamation Act to ensure that government agencies do not continue to use tax-payers’ dollars to fund actions against their own citizens in Court. The government – particularly in Singapore where the mainstream media is state-controlled – has ample resources and opportunity to respond to any inquiry or criticism raised by the public without resorting to punitive civil action against private individuals.”

 

This article was first published on Yahoo! Singapore 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Politicians online – look for them here

Social Media (or New Media) is expected to play a part in…

Local wedding called out for wearing Native American headdress for wedding; netizens say ignorance is no excuse

In this increasingly global society we live in, being socially conscious is…

现实版《穿着Prada的恶魔》? 网民历数服装公司16罪状

日前本地主流报导,有本地服装品牌公司因业绩不好而体罚员工青蛙蹲200下。不少网民亦站出来,历数该公司的16罪状,包括要求工作必须早到迟退、两个月要染发一次、新人必须为先出钱帮旧员工打包等等,甚至还侵犯个人隐私,包括查看手机、询问假日活动等! 《新明日报》报导某服装店(Southxxxx)体罚员工后,虽然有旧员工辩护,是员工自愿挑战青蛙蹲,但是网友Yong Ling Lee于8月22日在脸书群组 “新加坡工作介绍所” 贴出长文,分享她在该服装连锁店内所面对的种种 “挑战” 。 自掏腰包为旧员工打包 来自马来西亚的她指出,那是她在我国的首份工作,因薪资而选择在该公司工作。然而,工作的第一天就让她“大开眼界”了,新员工需要每日自掏腰包,为旧职员外出两次打包餐点。旧员工所点的餐点都不便宜,新职员除了要先出钱为他们打包之外,自己也只能跟着在同一家餐馆打包,没有其他的选择,且要差不多一两周后才能拿回“打包费”。 “我们是销售衣服的,不是当你们的傀儡,请问这个包括在我的工作范围吗?” 早到迟退…

MAS: New Payment Services Act to bolster confidence and consumer protection

On Tuesday (28 Jan), a new Payment Services Act has come into…