The Real Singapore

Nov 1, 2013

http://therealsingapore.com/content/han-hui-hui-%E2%80%93-cpe-saga-continues

I refer to the article “Breaking news, theonlinecitizen, Oct 31: “The Council of Private Education, through their lawyers, have declined to accept blogger Han Hui Hui’s request for it to agree to set aside the settlement agreement between the two sides.

In its reply, the letter from CPE’s lawyers said “there is already in place a binding settlement agreement in respect of any and all disputes and issues arising out of, in connection with or incidental to the matters [in the settlement].”

It also took issue with and noted that Ms Han “has again chosen to ventilate the issues” to the media, “without the benefit of our client’s substantive response.”

Ms Han had sought the CPE’s agreement to let her proceed with the court hearing into her application for the courts to declare that the CPE, a statutory board, cannot sue for defamation.””

This saga may be becoming like a comedy of sorts.

Since “there is already in place a binding settlement agreement in respect of any and all disputes and issues arising out of, in connection with or incidental to the matters [in the settlement]”, why did the CPE speak to the media first shortly after the settlement? – as rightly pointed out in the Yahoo News article “COMMENT: CPE should accede to blogger’s request” (Oct 31), which said that “in comments to news reports about the settlement, the CPE claimed that it was Han who had first approached it to discuss a settlement of the matter. It is a claim which Han rejected, saying that in fact the offer to settle was from the CPE.

Now, Han is – in effect – calling the CPE’s bluff and is asking it to agree to set aside the settlement, as required by law, so that her application can be resumed before the court”.

As to “It also took issue with and noted that Ms Han “has again chosen to ventilate the issues” to the media, “without the benefit of our client’s substantive response” – wasn’t it (according to the Yahoo News article cited above) the CPE that chose to ventilate to the media first, shortly after the settlement?

I believe many Singaporeans may be curious as to whether the CPE did give Han Hui Hui or her lawyer M Ravi “the benefit of our client’s substantive response”, if I may borrow the CPE’s words in its latest statement now, when it spoke to the media ventilating its claim that it was Han Hui Hui who had first approached it to discuss a settlement?

So, the obvious question that many Singaporeans may be asking now is – now that you have had all the time in the world (its been 3 days since Han Hui Hui’s “in effect – calling the CPE’s bluff and is asking it to agree to set aside the settlement”, if I may borrow the Yahoo News article’s words) – how come there is no “substantive response”?

In my view, perhaps Singaporeans should not be overly distracted by all these – what I call “trying to save face” type of rhetoric – does it really matter who started to offer to settle first?

If one party started the whole saga by sending a legal letter threatening to sue another for defamation, and then comes to a settlement without the party who was supposed to have defamed the first party, having to apologise or pay legal costs or damages – I am a layman when it comes to legal matters – but I think Singaporeans may draw the same conclusion as I have – that – isn’t it rather obvious whose face has been in a sense – “lose face”?

So, back to my point that we should not be distracted by the latest “quarrel” and focus on the main issue as so aptly put in the Yahoo News article as follows:

“The case, in fact, is an important one for Singapore, considering that such a matter has never been raised in the courts before. Also, it is pertinent that the public be certain of whether they can be sued by government bodies, including statutory boards. (Incidentally, there are more than 60 such boards in Singapore. See here.)

At the heart of the case is the question of “whether the prospect of defamation proceedings constitutes a limitation on free and open scrutiny and criticism of a governmental body, such as the CPE.”

Uniquely Singapore!

Leong Sze Hian