SDP's Wijeysingha apologises to Tan Chuan-Jin

Minister's lawyers want damages from SDP's Wijeysingha
He deliberately twisted facts in defamatory post which damaged Tan Chuan-Jin's reputation, they say; sum to be given to charity

TODAY, 5 Jan 2013

Opposition politician Dr Vincent Wijeysingha today apologised to Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin for making defamatory comments about him, but the question of damages to be paid remains.

In a letter of demand dated Dec 22, 2012, Mr Tan's lawyers had asked for an apology and a retraction to be made over remarks in an article posted on Dr Wijeysingha's Facebook account on Dec 2 on the illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers in November.

Describing Dr Wijeysingha's words about the Minister as "severely defamatory" and his points "untrue" and "made dishonestly", the lawyers also demanded that he remove the Facebook article and all comments linked to it, and undertake to "pay suitable sums to our client as compensation for the damage to his reputation and the distress caused".

Whatever sum Dr Wijeysingha pays will be donated to charity, it is understood.

In their letter, the lawyers said the Singapore Democratic Party's treasurer had impugned that Mr Tan was dishonest and deceptive, and that he had been "been bought by monetary and material inducements".

They said Dr Wijeysingha had "deliberately twisted the facts", and had published his comments "maliciously and recklessly".

In his apology, which was posted today, Dr Wijeysingha did not address the issue of compensation. He acknowledged that he had made allegations that were "wholly untrue and false". "I withdraw wholly the Allegations, and apologise unreservedly to the Minister. I undertake not to repeat the same or similar Allegations, or cause such same or similar Allegations to be published, in the future," he wrote.

In their strongly-worded six-page letter of demand on Dec 22, Mr Tan's lawyers at Allen&Gledhill, Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Kenneth Lim, wrote:

"There can be no doubt that the natural and ordinary meanings of the Words as set out above are severely defamatory of our client. The points which you made are also untrue, and are made dishonestly.

On your first point, you have sought to paint a picture that the labour dispute involving the Chinese bus drivers was a long standing dispute, which had been brewing for the past six months leading up to the illegal strike on 26 and 27 November 2012. You also rely on a TOC article dated 1 October 2012 in the Article to make the point that this dispute, which resulted in the strike, had been made known to the nation. These assertions are patently untrue, and you know that to be the case.

You are well-aware, through the various media reports available in the public domain, or by virtue of your previous position as the executive director of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and/or your position in the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), or otherwise, that the dispute in the six months prior to the illegal strike was a completely different and separate dispute. The earlier dispute concerns issues raised by the local bus drivers of SMRT, not the Chinese bus drivers. The subject matter of that earlier dispute is also different - the main issue there being the change in the bus drivers' work week from five to six days. It must have been clear to you that the issues raised in the earlier dispute (to which you refer) are wholly different from those in the present dispute, which concern the perceived inequality in the pay between the Chinese bus drivers and the Malaysian bus drivers, as well as their living conditions. In fact, the headline in a Straits Times report dated 27 November 2012 on the strike reads "Key grouse said to be over unequal salaries".

You must also know that your contention is false because, contrary to your assertion, the TOC article dated 1 October 2012, on which you rely and quoted extensively from, allegedly for support, had clearly reported that the relevant dispute was concerned with the issue of the change in work week and had referred to the affected drivers as the "local Singaporean drivers". In fact, the TOC article goes further to make the point that the local drivers were convinced that the change in work week would favour the "hardworking foreign workers". The TOC article was in fact making the point that the foreign bus drivers were in fact better off. This is wholly contrary to what you purport to rely on the TOC article for.

It therefore appears to our client that you had deliberately mis-stated the facts and conflated the recent dispute of the Chinese bus drivers with a wholly distinct and separate earlier dispute involving the local bus drivers. You have done this to create the false impression that the Chinese bus drivers' labour dispute had been long standing. You have also omitted to say that this earlier dispute raised by the local bus drivers has since in fact been addressed and resolved by the relevant authorities. You did so because you sought to leave the readers of your Article with the impression that the dispute was long standing which the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had "ignored" and that our client had pretended ignorance of.

On your second point, your contention that the Chinese bus drivers did not have the legitimate processes and avenues available to them to seek redress (and thus had to resort to the illegal strike), is also patently false.

The truth is that there are legitimate processes and avenues available to the Chinese bus drivers to raise and resolve their grievances. In fact, the Chinese bus drivers of SMRT have previously availed themselves of such processes and avenues. They have raised labour disputes and concerns directly with the MOM through these channels, and action was swiftly and effectively taken. It is therefore incorrect and wholly disingenuous of you to allege in the Article that the Chinese bus drivers had no legitimate processes and avenues to turn to, and were forced to mount an illegal strike.

It is clearly apparent to our client that you have deliberately twisted the facts to create the misleading impression to readers that no legitimate processes exist for the Chinese bus drivers to seek redress of their grievances. You have also conflated the different disputes of the different groups of bus drivers in the Article to give a clearly false and unfair impression that the Chinese bus drivers' labour dispute over the perceived unfair pay (compared to Malaysian bus drivers) and poor housing had been long standing, which the relevant authorities and persons, especially our client, had ignored, left unaddressed and/or claimed ignorance. Your allegations made against our client in the Article are therefore clearly premised on wholly misplaced, misleading and false facts.

Given as you say, your previous position as the executive director of TWC2 and/or your position in the SDP and your own experiences in dealing with the bus drivers on their labour disputes, you must have been aware that your statement that no such legitimate processes were available to them was patently untrue.

In the circumstances, our client is left with the inevitable conclusion that you have published the Words in the passages maliciously and recklessly, and/or without a care or belief whether the Words or the facts which the Words are based on are true or false.

The Words are false, baseless and scurrilous allegations made by you against our client, and they constitute a very grave libel against our client, both personally and in his office as the Acting Minister for Manpower. The effect of the Words is to lower the reputation of our client in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public, and/or expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The Words have clearly impugned his character, credit and integrity, as well as caused him considerable distress.

The Words are available to the general public at large on your Facebook account, and the numerous comments posted in response to the Article confirm that the Article has been widely accessed and read. 

We are also instructed that a number of websites have also reposted the Article, and this further confirms that the Article has been widely circulated online. All this has only increased the harm to our client's reputation and the distress caused to him."

Mr Wijeysingha's apology, which was published on Jan 5, 2013, in full:

"I, Vincent Wijeysingha, wrote and posted the article entitled on my Facebook account on 2 December 2012 (the "Article"). The Article's focus was on the recent illegal strike by the Chinese bus drivers of SMRT Corporation Ltd, which took place on 26 and 27 November 2012. In the Article, I made the following allegations (the "Allegations") against Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, the Acting Minister for Manpower and the Senior Minister of State, Ministry of National Development, Singapore (the "Minister"):

(1) The Minister was either dishonest or deceptive when he said that he was not aware of the particular complaint by the Chinese bus drivers which led to the strike.

(2) The Minister was being untruthful, dishonest and/or at the very least disingenuous, in his assurance to the public that there are legitimate processes in place for the settlement of labour disputes, and his said claim reflects the fact that he is systematically dishonest, as he knew that no legitimate processes existed for the Chinese bus drivers to avail themselves of and/or settle their labour concerns and disputes.

(3) The Minister's lack of honesty and integrity resulted from the fact that he has been bought by monetary and material inducements.

I accept that the Allegations above are wholly untrue and false. They are made without basis, and are defamatory of the Minister. I withdraw wholly the Allegations, and apologise unreservedly to the Minister. I undertake not to repeat the same or similar Allegations, or cause such same or similar Allegations to be published, in the future."

* Minister receives S$5,000 in damages for defamation case

By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY, 14 Mar 2013

Opposition politician Vincent Wijeysingha has paid S$5,000 to Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin for defamatory allegations made about the latter in a Facebook post last December.

The lecturer and Singapore Democratic Party treasurer had earlier withdrawn his allegations against Mr Tan and apologised unreservedly, while agreeing to pay damages.

The allegations, made in an article on the illegal strike by Chinese SMRT bus drivers last November, were about Mr Tan’s truthfulness and contended that the labour dispute between the drivers and SMRT had been long-standing, with no legitimate avenues for the drivers to seek redress.

Mr Tan had proposed a sum of S$20,000 in cost and damages — which was “generous, given the gravity of the defamation”, according to his lawyers — but Dr Wijeysingha responded that he had limited financial resources and could pay no more than S$5,000 in damages. He also made a statutory declaration under oath on his financial position.

Mr Tan accepted Dr Wijeysingha’s proposal “as a gesture of goodwill”, said his lawyer Kenneth Lim of Allen and Gledhill.

“Our client emphasises that his legal action was not about obtaining damages, and our client would have donated any damages above costs to charity,” he said.

“Our client took action because the allegations were entirely false, untrue and made irresponsibly. Our client is satisfied that his reputation has been vindicated.”

Responding last night, Dr Wijeysingha said: “The Facebook note highlighted the plight of low-wage workers, many of whom endure extremely poor conditions. I hope Mr Tan will work with all concerned to address the issue. We can now put this matter behind us.”