Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam’s
20 year career as Member of Parliament in Singapore and his 42 year career as a
lawyer ended on July 23, 2001, when the Singapore Court of Appeal unanimously
dismissed his bankruptcy appeal. The
following day, Tan Soo Khoon, Speaker of Parliament, announced, “I have to
inform honourable members the seat of Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam, as a
non-constituency Member of Parliament, has become vacant.” This observer
attended two appeals as discussed below which represent the final chapter in
the legal and parliamentary career of Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam.
The two appeals
involving J.B. Jeyaretnam were heard by the Singapore Court of Appeal on July
23rd and July 25th, 2001:
- The Lee Kuan Yew case civil appeal
number 600023 of 2001 between Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the appellant, and
Lee Kuan Yew, the respondent and former prime minister, presently senior minister
of the Government of Singapore, heard July 25, 2001, judgement reserved and
given on August 22, 2001
- The Krishnan case (the bankruptcy appeal) civil appeal number
600011 of 2001 between Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the appellant, and Indra
Krishnan, heard July 23, 2001 and dismissed, and reasons for judgement given
August 7, 2001.
These two appeals
were the culmination of 26 years of defamation litigation against Mr.
Jeyaretnam begun in 1976 by Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister and former Prime
Minister of Singapore, and ending with the proceeding before the Court of
Appeal on July 25 2001, in which Lee Kuan Yew was also the plaintiff. To date, Mr. Jeyaretnam has paid in excess
of 1 million Singapore dollars to satisfy defamation awards against him and the
defamation judgement debts outstanding exceeds a further $1/2 million. There is a concern that defamation
proceedings against Mr. Jeyaretnam and other government critics have impaired
the right of Singaporeans to fully engage in professions that carry with them
the duty or responsibility to, when necessary, be critical of government. This
affects lawyers, parliamentarians, journalists, human rights defenders and all
who depend on their services. There is
also concern with effective violation of international standards governing
freedom of expression and the right and duty of parliamentarians, lawyers,
journalists and others to report on and advocate against human rights
violations by the state. These
standards are embodied in numerous instruments, including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, the
Harare Commonwealth Declaration and Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers.
While the appeals
are merely the culmination of a long process, the appeal process adds to the
concerns. The Court of Appeal failed to adequately consider the issue of abuse
of process in the Krishnan appeal. The dominant purpose of the Krishnan case appeared to be to prevent
Mr. Jeyaretnam from further criticising the government of Singapore and to
remove him from public office by disqualifying him from continuing to sit as a Member
of Parliament and by barring him from membership in the Law Society of
Singapore. This collateral purpose
arguably should have lead to a dismissal of the petition in bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider
this error, but nowhere in the reasons for judgement do they address this issue
of collateral purpose and abuse of process.
The Krishnan appeal ended the parliamentary
career of Mr. Jeyaretnam, because he was now a bankrupt. It also ended his legal career. The finding of the Court of Appeal was that
Mr. Jeyaretnam had to be judged
bankrupt as he did not have the resources or assets to pay the judgement. Two days later the Court of
Appeal heard Mr. Jeyaretnam’s appeal involving a defamation suit brought by Lee
Kuan Yew. This defamation lawsuit went
back to the 1997 election and the details are set out more fully in this
report. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong,
senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew (formerly Prime Minister of Singapore) and other
government members had filed lawsuits against Jeyaretnam alleging that he had
defamed them at an election rally. The
words complained of were the same in each lawsuit and they were all intended to
have been heard in 1998. For the reason
set out later in this report, the lawsuit of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong
proceeded, but the lawsuit of Lee Kuan Yew did not proceed. It is the duty of the plaintiff Lee Kuan Yew
to take his case to trial. It was
intended that it would have gone to trial in 1997, however it did not. The issue in this appeal was whether on
application of Jeyaretnam, the appeal should have been dismissed for want of
prosecution. The reasoning of the Court
of Appeal in dismissing Jeyaretnam’s appeal in respect of Lee Kuan Yew is
further discussed in this report.
These two
Jeyaretnam appeals have highlighted a number of legal and human rights concerns
in Singapore, namely:
- The apparent influence of PAP members on the excessive damage awards against
government critics;
- The questions that the size of damage and cost awards against government
critics raise about the independence of the Singapore judiciary;
- The palpably repressive effect of the awards on all aspects of freedom of
expression in relation to criticism of government; and
- The absence of a right-to-jury trial in Singapore.
