The Real Singapore
15 Oct 2013
I refer to the articles “Blogger made ‘first move to settle matter” (Straits Times, Oct 14), “Blogger withdraws stat board challenge” (Straits Times, Oct 9) and “Blogger seeks ruling that stat board can’t sue for defamation” (Straits Times, Apr 20).
Who backed down first?
The former states that “”The offer that CPE [Council of Private Education] would not commence defamation proceedings in exchange for my client dropping her constitutional challenge emanated from CPE.
“There is no such counter-offer.
“This particular offer came from CPE and not my client.
“Prior to the offer made by CPE, there were negotiations which culminated in this offer, which my client accepted.”
(Quoting M Ravi who is the counsel for Han Hui Hui)
So, who do you believe – CPE or M Ravi?
In my view there has been much confusion over the media reporting of this case – such that I believe quite a lot of Singaporeans may be asking – Who should I believe?
Chronology of major events?
In this regard, I have read all the media reports and documents published online, and have pieced together what I understand is the chronology of events.
Apr 2013: Han Hui Hui blogs about some issues regarding private educational institutions
5 April 2013: “The events began on April 5 when Ms Han called up CPE to question some alleged comments made by an officer. CPE wrote to Ms Han clarifying that the officer in question had not made any such comments.
Ms Han subsequently sent two e-mails, copied to various media, alleging that the officer had lied to a reporter. These allegations were posted on her blog and Facebook page. CPE then sent her a letter, through its lawyers Allen & Gledhill, on April 15 to demand that she retract her allegations. It added that the letter was “not in response to her blog posts on private education institutions or her comments pertaining to private education, as some media reports have inferred”. (Quote from the Straits Times of Oct 14) (Also refer to The New Paper article and journalist’s email related to this, in April 2013)
15 Apr 2013: CPE engages one of the largest law firms to send a letter to Han Hui Hui – threatening to sue her for defamation
… Han Hui Hui tries to find a lawyer to represent her, but was rejected by about 10 lawyers
… M Ravi agrees to represent her
20 Apr 2013: She seeks a court judgement to determine whether a Statutory Board can sue a citizen for defamation?
17 May 2013: AGC to be joined as party in blogger’s case involving stat board
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/05/17/agc-to-be-joined-as-party-in-bloggers-case-involving-stat-board/
9 Oct 2013: CPE and Han Hui Hui settles out of court within hours of the scheduled trial date – CPE said Han Hui Hui had shut down her Facebook and blog but she said she never did
14 Oct 2013: According to the CPE, she was the first to initiate a settlement, but M Ravi says it was the CPE?
So, perhaps the current impasse may best be simply put to rest by either party producing the letters of exchange to show without any doubt who offered what first?
The important issue?
However the above should not distract us from what in my view are the main issues of this case.
Can a statutory board sue a citizen for defamation?
Unless this question is settled – citizens may be afraid to ask questions or speak out against statutory boards.
Since it was the CPE’s initial contention that what Han Hui Hui said was defamatory, the CPE should be allowed, arguably, to take the easy way out by treating the issues raised by Han Hui Hui as “forgotten”.
In this connection, you may like to read “What has CPE achieved in 4 years of existence?” (TR Emeritus, Oct 12)
Public duty?
It should be the public duty and accountability of statutory boards to address concerns raised by citizens, instead of not responding, or responding by threatening to sue citizens for defamation, or settling out of court but still without responding to the issues raised.
It is perhsps ironic that the CPE is the regulator of private educational institutions, and is under the Ministry of Education (MOE) .
What kind of message are we sending to students in regard to public duty, accountability and transparency?
Who was first? Does it really matter?
As to its latest statement to the press – abeit one that has a 149th press freedom ranking in the world – bickering over who initiated the settlement first – like the Cantonese saying “tik chor loc dei zhung yu la fan za sar” (Fall down on the ground still want to grab some sand).
With this kind of behaviour from our public institutions, is it any wonder that there has been so much talk recently about the erosion of trust in our public institutions?
The reason to sue?
By the way, how much taxpayers’ monies have been spent by the CPE in engaging one of the largest law firms to make legal submissions which may exceed 100 pages, to sue a citizen for defamation because she had made allegations that what a CPE staff said to the media about her was not true?
Couldn’t the CPE have simply provided documentary proof to the public that her allegations about the CPE staff was false?
Which is the greater issue from the perspective of the public interest – the issues raised by Han Hui Hui or her allegations about the CPE staff’s remarks to the media?
Leong Sze Hian
*Leong is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, has authored 4 books, quoted over 1500 times in the media , has been host of a money radio show, a daily newspaper column, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, acting managing editor and columnist for theonlinecitizen, columnist for Malaysiakini, a Member on the CIFA International Advisory Board, executive producer of the movie Ilo Ilo (8 international awards), treasurer of Maruah, and invited to speak more than 100 times in more than 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications.
P.S. Han Hui Hui has lost her life savings of $10,755.
If only 10,755 Singaporeans who care – donate $1 each to this brave 33 kg 21 year old.
Send your $1 vide Internet Banking, ATM or cheque to POSB savings account no. 279-12328-0 Han Hui Hui.
Please help to share this meaningful activity with your friends.
Written by Leong Sze Hian, Vivian Pan and Roy Ngerng
