TR EMERITUS

Lawyer M Ravi After Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) terminated blogger Roy Ngerng's employment yesterday (10 Jun), his lawyer M Ravi wrote to both TTSH and the Ministry of Health (MOH) today (11 Jun). In his letter, Mr Ravi said that pending a final judgement of the High Court, the lawsuit is sub judice. "Its outcome remains a matter for the Courts to determine. That is the rule of law," Mr Ravi said. "The law of defamation is complex. It may entail analysis of technical issues arising out of the pursuit of proceedings after apology and the assessment of quantum of damages. It includes issues that may give rise to an appeal and the determination of such an appeal," Mr Ravi added. Mr Ravi noted that on account of the statements of his client, Roy, his employment has been terminated by TTSH. Mr Ravi said TTSH has issued a public statement in which it cites defamation as a basis for justifying the termination of Roy's employment, stating that people cannot defame someone else without basis, which essentially means knowingly stating a falsehood to the public. Mr Ravi noted that MOH, though not a party to the contract of employment between Roy and TTSH, has also issued a public statement supporting TTSH's decision. In particular, MOH said that Roy's actions show a "lack of integrity and are incompatible with the values and standards of behaviour expected of hospital employees". As Roy's advocate in the defamation proceedings which are before the Court, Mr Ravi requests TTSH and MOH to exercise restraint in relation to issuing public statements about matters that are "intricately connected to the subject matter of the litigation". Mr Ravi regretted that MOH has seen fit to issue a public statement in support of TTSH's decision to terminate Roy's employment at this time, while civil proceedings are before the Court. TTSH's response In response to Mr Ravi's letter which was copied to the media, TTSH replied today (11 Jun) that there was "nothing improper" about how it laid out the reasons for the termination. TTSH pointed out that Mr Ngerng had, on May 23, publicly admitted that he posted a defamatory article on May 15 alleging misappropriation of funds in relation to the CPF and described his own allegation as "false and completely without foundation". TTSH said its yesterday's statement had laid out the reasons for the termination of contract, "based on his public admission that he had defamed without basis and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for his personal pursuits".  Read More →

Former NUS Law Prof Tey Tsun Hang (Photo: CNA) The former tenured law professor of the National University of Singapore (NUS), Tey Tsun Hang, who was summarily dismissed by the university on 28 May 2013 - the same day he was initially convicted of corruption – filed a court document on 3 June 2014 to seek reinstatement of his tenured academic position. Mr Tey, whose conviction was subsequently overturned by the High Court, has asked to quash what he calls the ‘wrong and wrongful’ summary dismissal by NUS. Mr Tey alleged that NUS carried out the summary dismissal without regard to due process and without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Mr Tey is seeking judicial remedies on the ground that the summary dismissal against him was a breach of natural justice, infringing his fundamental right to a fair hearing and of the presumption of innocence, and is illegal, irrational and procedurally improper. Prominent human rights lawyer, M Ravi, is representing Mr Tey. In April 2012, Mr Tey was interrogated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). After 12 hours of interrogation, he was rushed in an ambulance to a government hospital for emergency medical treatment. He was prosecuted and charged for corruption on 27 July 2012. NUS suspended him from duty on the same date, on the basis of the criminal charges. When he was convicted on 28 May 2013, he was served with a summary dismissal letter by the university. The conviction was eventually declared wrong and wrongful by the Singapore Supreme Court on 28 February 2014. Mr Tey is now taking NUS to court to seek due process and fair hearing. He said, "NUS cannot dismiss a tenured law professor based on a conviction declared by the High Court to be misconceived and mistaken, a conviction based on evidence misconstrued and its significance misunderstood.” Mr Tey said he was not called up by NUS for investigations, prior to the summary dismissal. Previously, 2 Singapore Supreme Court judges, in agreeing with the Attorney-General’s Chambers which drafted the NUS statute, had declared NUS a public body and invoked the onerous criminal presumption of guilt against Mr Tey. He is now asking the same Supreme Court to similarly treat NUS as a public body in according him the public law rights that he is entitled to. Mr Tey requests that his former employers “to do what is right, and live up to the international reputation it aspires to” – carry out proper investigations and hold a fair hearing at the very least, and not dismiss him without regard to due process. In response, NUS said today (11 Jun) that under the terms and conditions of Mr Tey's appointment, termination may be effected without prior notice and without any payment of compensation should he be convicted by a court of law of any crime that is likely to bring the university into disrepute. The university can also exercise its rights of summary dismissal should Mr Tey be guilty of misconduct or impropriety, a spokesman added. "NUS takes a very strong stand against faculty who behave in a grossly inappropriate manner in their interactions with our students. Under our Code of Conduct, University staff are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and propriety, and perform their duties in a professional and conscientious manner." Mr Tey has previously written critically against the Singapore government. He wrote about how the Singapore government had charged its opposition leaders and activists under various laws and how government leaders had used defamation proceedings to sue and cripple their opponents. Just before he was interrogated by CPIB in April 2012, his book, ‘Supreme Executive, Supine Jurisprudence and Supplication Profession’ was published by Hong Kong University in late 2011, and his writing was criticised by the then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in February 2012.  Read More →

07.06.2014 'Return Our CPF'@HLP (June 9, 2014) - As I was using the railroad system, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), on Saturday to catch up with friends and relatives in the city one last time before I boarded the flight home, I came across something strange. For 80 days in Singapore, I had hardly seen any protest. On that Saturday evening as I was walking towards the Clarke Quay MRT Station, I saw on the stage in Hong Lim Park a large banner saying "Return Our CPF". Moving closer, I saw a frail young man in black glasses posing for photographs with Singaporeans young and old. One uncle, as Singaporeans address their elderly, wished the young man well and wanted him to "go all the way." Another uncle introduced a small kid and wanted an autograph. The young man was Roy Ngerng. He has been sued by Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong for some blog posts allegedly defamatory. Going by the public response, the move seems to have backfired. In the initial days, the case was taking a familiar trajectory: PM's lawyers were moving in aggressively for damages pushing Ngerng to a corner. They even rejected his initial offer of S$5,000 as damages. Ngerng posted an online appeal for funds and in five days collected S$81,000. The response has got tongues wagging. On the subway to the Clarke Quay MRT Station, a man returning from the gathering said the PM could have saved his face by taking the offer; people have started chanting 2016 general elections and Ngerng in the same breath. While it may be too early to predict a revolution, it would be safe to say there are interesting days ahead for Singapore and its leadership. Bull markets are a bit like revolutions. They need a charismatic leader and a fancy destination. It was great fun to see the Street had bitten the bait of Sensex at 100,000 offered by Street Food last month. Since then analysts have come with earnings projections and timelines that will take us to the number. Karvy Stock Broking says sees Sensex @100k in 2020, while Dhirendra Kumar of Value Research has talked about double that number. When I left for Singapore, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) was trading at Rs 886. It is now 26 per cent higher at Rs 1,120. Street Food had said a sustainable bull market was not possible if RIL remained weak. The strength of the company, fuelled by expectations about its prospects under the new government, is a key for the rally. So, there you have the fancy destination and the charismatic leader. Is that enough for the man on the road to jump in? I can speak for myself. Despite all temptations, I am still mostly on liquid diet. Most of my life's savings is in liquid instruments; the bulk in savings bank accounts. Personal finance experts will call it nonsense. But am I ready for the plunge? No. I am still scared of the waterfall, which I suspect is down the river. Source: www.business-standard.com/article/markets/revolutions-and-bull-markets-114060901187_1.html  Read More →