|
SINGAPORE Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin did not just repeat 'false and malicious attacks' against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, lawyers for both men told the High Court.
They had timed their libel as 'part of a premeditated and planned strategy to gain political mileage' in the 2006 General Election (GE), they said in a statement at the start of a hearing yesterday.
The hearing was to assess damages for the Lees in a suit they had won against the SDP and the Chees for defaming them in articles in the party newsletter, The New Democrat.
The Lees were seeking substantial damages, their lawyers said. They were led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier.
This was because the court had, in 2006, found 'allegations of corruption, nepotism, cover-up and criminal conduct' in the libellous articles, they noted.
And unless these accusations were demolished, they would destroy the Lees' reputation and moral authority, they added.
'Indeed, their lives, reputations and ability to lead Singaporeans are all founded on and shaped by their unflinching fidelity to integrity,' the lawyers said.
As for the Chees, they were 'prominent figures' as leaders of the SDP.
So when they defamed the Lees, they had the capacity 'to inflict maximum damage'.
They had also known that the libel would be read in 'influential and reputable newspapers'.
Not only that, there was 'deep-seated malice', as the Chees had not only failed to make any apology, but even repeated the libel.
'Repeatedly exposed...as a liar, having been sued by the MM, Chee has lost all objectivity and sense of proportion. He is bent on vengeance, regardless of the cost to others,' said the lawyers.
Chee was declared a bankrupt in 2006 for failing to pay damages to MM Lee and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in an earlier defamation suit.
As for Ms Chee, the lawyers added that 'Chee Soon Juan is not just her brother, but her brother-in-arms'.
Both had launched personal attacks against the Lees, they said, citing their unfurling of a banner that said 'FREE Singapore from the LEEs' at an SDP rally in May 2006.
And they had published the libel 'without regard to the interest and views of their fellow central executive committee members at all'.
They knew that if they had informed the others, they would have been stopped, the lawyers said.
Indeed, other SDP central executive committee members had sent letters to the plaintiffs distancing themselves from the Chees' actions.
Buttressing their arguments, the Lees' lawyers argued that the Chees had aggravated matters by:
Repeatedly telling the public that they would not apologise and continuing to sell The New Democrat;
Behaving in an insulting way and further defaming the Lees by falsely and publicly accusing them of abusing the legal process;
Going public with their defence in order to manipulate public opinion to get sympathy and put the Lees in a bad light;
Pleading that they were justified in their articles and that these were fair comment, when they knew that their claims had no basis;
Delaying proceedings through 'extraordinary means' and racking up costs that they knew the Lees would not be able to recover; and
Using the proceedings 'to further defame and insult' the Lees, including by filing 'outrageous and scandalous' affidavits for political gain.
The lawyers said that the case was 'unprecedented for its array of false allegations', 'perhaps the gravest defamation that has ever been considered by a Singapore court'.
The Chees had 'a sinister purpose': to damage the Lees 'for the benefit of their foreign backers and to gain political mileage during GE 2006', the lawyers said.
zakirh@sph.com.sg
PM takes the stand after much delay
|
