ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS: Ms Chee asserted the court had made up its mind from the start of the proceedings. -- ST PHOTO: SHAHRIYA YAHAYA

View more photos

The Chee siblings will appear before Justice Belinda Ang tomorrow to show cause for why she should not cite them for contempt of court.

The three-day hearing was to decide on damages the SDP and Chee siblings have to pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in articles published in the SDP newsletter in 2006, drawing parallels between the ways the Government and the National Kidney Foundation were run.

The hearing also saw the Chees and their lawyer M. Ravi cross-examining PM Lee and MM Lee in the witness stand.

Yesterday, Justice Ang wrapped up the hearing by rapping the Chee siblings: They had 'scandalised the court, adversely affected the administration of justice, and impugned the dignity and the authority of the court', she said.

She reserved judgment on damages, but had some things to say to the Chees.

As they kept their heads bowed, she read out a list of incidents showing that they had 'consistently disregarded and disobeyed the court's directions to desist from asking irrelevant questions' during cross-examination of the Lees.

One example was Dr Chee asking PM Lee about his remarks during the 2006 election about 'fixing' the opposition, in spite of these questions having been ruled irrelevant to the assessment of damages.

Despite the court's repeated urging to desist from this line of questioning, he said to PM Lee: 'Don't hide behind your counsel, come out here. Be a real leader.'

Another example of contempt of court cited by Justice Ang related to the Chees' repeated accusations of bias on the part of the court.

For instance, Ms Chee had asserted, in her closing statement, that the court had made up its mind from the beginning of the proceedings and denied the SDP and Chees 'every opportunity' to defend themselves.

'Effectively, what you have said, Ms Chee, (is) that I had not only prejudged this case, I rubber stamp every application made by the plaintiff in this court,' said Justice Ang.

This exchange ended Day 3 of the hearing which was marred by 'acrimony and controversy', according to Dr Chee.

The hearing began with a novel argument from Mr Ravi that political parties should not be suing or be sued for defamation, and hence the day's hearing should adjourn for Justice Ang to review her 2006 summary judgment ruling.

Justice Ang disagreed with his arguments, and dismissed his application for adjournment.

If Mr Ravi wanted to pursue the matter, the proper procedure was to file a fresh action, she said.

This issue took about an hour to settle, after which lawyers for both sides gave their closing arguments.

The Lees' lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, asked the court to award 'very, very substantial' damages as there were many facets to the defamation, not to mention the 'outrageous' conduct of the Chees.

In contrast, Mr Ravi called on the court to award the Lees 'nominal' damages of 50 cents, arguing that their reputation had not suffered as a result of the defamation.

Dr Chee, in a rather reflective speech, said the case was not about him or the Lees, but about freedom and dignity.

'I know what I say now will not make a difference in terms of damages, but I willingly assume this position and this life because even if I have to go into deeper bankruptcy, I believe that this is a path that I cannot run away from,' he said.

sueann@sph.com.sg

Related stories
'Typical Chee - he changes story when caught out'
SDP chief's version 'at odds with the facts'
Lees' lawyer asks for substantial damages
SDP lawyer proposes nominal damages of 50 cents
Previous defamation suits
Davinder: Only one conclusion - hypocrisy and deception
Chee: A call I will ultimately trust and obey
Attempt to set aside court ruling fails
Can political parties sue for defamation?
When English is understood as Greek