1. The First Defendant contends that this suit, along with Suits No. 2523, 2524 and 2525 of 1996 and Suits No. 70, 76, 82, 172, 182, 187 and 244 of 1997 ("the related actions") is an abuse of the process of the Court and should be struck out or stayed. The Defence is served without prejudice to that contention.

2. Paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

3. It is denied that the words complained of bore the meanings alleged in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim.

4. The First Defendant admits that he is responsible in law for the republication in the Straits Times of the words admittedly spoken by him. Otherwise paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted.

5. Paragraph 16 to 18 of the Statement of Claim are admitted.

6. Paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim is denied.

7. Further or alternatively the words as spoken by the First Defendant were true in substance and in fact.

The First Defendant will justify the said words in the following meanings : 

1. The Plaintiffs in this action, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, are using defamation proceedings in order to overwhelm the First Defendant with litigation so that he will be put to huge expense and will be unable to pursue his political career, rather than to restore and vindicate their reputations.
   
2. Such behaviour amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
   

7.1 In or about August 1994 the First Defendant gave a talk to the Zeng Yi Association at a National Day dinner, which was attended by Teo Chee Hean, the First Plaintiff, about religious harmony and the steady development of society. Nothing in that talk could possibly warrant the conclusion that the First Defendant was a racist or held any of the views on race and Christianity which were later attributed to him by the Plaintiffs in this and related actions. 

7.2 In December 1996 the First Defendant was nominated as a candidate in the forthcoming General Election on behalf of the Workers’ Party ("the WP"). He stood as a candidate in the Cheng San GRC. It is the fervent wish of the Plaintiffs in this action, and the Plaintiffs in the related actions to prevent by all possible means the election of any opposition Members of Parliament in Singapore. In support of this allegation the First Defendant will rely inter alia upon statements made on behalf of the Peoples’ Action Party ("PAP") by Prime Minister Goh and reported respectively in the issue of the Straits Times for 30 and 31 December 1996 to the effect that of course he was biased and wanted to keep the First Defendant out of Parliament; that he was so determined to stop the First Defendant getting into Parliament that he was himself standing in the Cheng San GRC constituency and that the fact the First Defendant appeared to be a reasonable man of moderate means was "a difficulty that they (viz. the PAP) were going to solve and that they had to plug away and tell people there is a danger". 

7.3 As the election campaign in the said constituency proceeded, the indications were that the First Defendant was a popular candidate who had every prospect of succeeding in being elected. The First Defendant will rely in particular of the numbers of those attending WP rallies and (after discovery) on the surveys of voters’ intentions carried out on behalf of the PAP. 

7.4 The First Defendant will invite the Court to infer that the senior members of the PAP, including most if not all of the Plaintiffs in this and the related actions, became concerned at the prospect of the First Defendant being returned as a Member of Parliament and deliberated how best to ensure that he was discredited and in due course defeated. The First Defendant will give further particulars of this allegation after discovery and/or interrogatories and/or service of witness statements. 

7.5 As a result of the deliberations referred to at paragraph 7.4 above the Plaintiffs in this and the related actions combined together falsely to attribute to the First Defendant views which he does not hold and to misrepresent statements made by him with the intention of discrediting him in the estimation of the Singapore electorate and so preventing his election as a Member of Parliament and his destruction as a political force in Singapore. Such statements were made both during the campaign leading up to the General Election and after the General Election. These announcements variously described the First Defendant as: 

1. anti-Christian;
2. a Chinese chauvinist;
3. anti-English educated;
4. a dangerous character;
5. being against the Malay-educated;
6. being anti-Islam; and
7. being anti-Malay. 

7.6 In support of the contention in paragraph 7.5 above the First Defendant will rely by way of example on the following statements made by the Plaintiffs in this and the related actions in the run-up to the General Election and afterwards (all of which received, as their authors knew and intended, the widest publicity in the press and were read by the electors in the Cheng San GRC constituency):

1. as reported in the issue of the Straits Times for 27 December 1996, Rear Admiral Teo, the First Plaintiff, the Environment Minister and a prominent member of the PAP, alleged that at a dinner he had attended in Singapore in 1994, the First Defendant had said "improper things", drawn outrageous implications and indulged in dangerous talk, with the result that he (Teo) had concluded that the First Defendant was an extremist; that if elected the WP candidates would undermine Singapore’s political stability, bankrupt the country and sow disharmony in the community;
   
2. according to the same issue of the Straits Times, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, a plaintiff in related suits described the First Defendant as a "dangerous character"; a covert opponent of the government’s education policy, especially on Chinese language and culture; as playing and plugging a very dangerous line and as a person with "extreme ideas";
    
3. in the same article it was reported that Mr. Ch’ng Jit Koon, the Second Plaintiff in this action had stated that the First Defendant had "rather extreme and insensitive" views on culture and ethnic issues, and stated that the First Defendant "was inclined to speak like a Chinese chauvinist";
    
4. the article went on to refer to comments about the First Defendant made by Dr. Ow Chin Hock, the Third Plaintiff in this action. He stated that he had two reservations about the First Defendant : his "extreme positions on Chinese language and culture issues" and his "emotional and temperamental" nature;
    
5. the Straits Times for 27 December 1996 also published an article on the PAP’s first election rally at Hougang Stadium entitled "Jeya and Tang are strange bedfellows : SM". The article reported Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew ("SM Lee"), a plaintiff in a related action, had accused the First Defendant and J.B. Jeyaretnam, the head of the Workers' Party, of being "language chauvinists" brought together by political opportunism and that the First Defendant was a "Chinese-language chauvinist". SM Lee went on to state that both men’s cultural chauvinism proved that they were political opportunists. He also alleged that the First Defendant had stated that there were too many Christians in Parliament;
    
6. on 27 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled "Serious Men vs Opportunists". This article reported comments made by Prime Minister Goh and SM Lee that the First Defendant was a "Chinese chauvinist" who held "radical views" on the promotion of the Chinese language and culture in Singapore. They warned that these views would undermine Singapore’s racial peace. SM Lee stated that the First Defendant was "anti-English-educated and anti-Christian." Prime Minister Goh also stated that:

1. several Member of Parliaments had urged that the First Defendant should not be allowed to enter Parliament as his views could divide the country; and that
   
2. the First Defendant had said in a speech in 1994 that many Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants were Christians and English-educated. Prime Minister Goh stated that this was a "dangerous position" as it amounted to advocating a racial quota system for appointments to top posts rather than one based on meritocracy.

1. On 28 December 1996 the Straits Times reported on a Hong Kah GRC rally which took place on 27 December 1996. The article, entitled "PM to Tang : repeat 1994 statements in public", reported that Prime Minister Goh had alleged that the First Defendant, at a dinner in 1994, had stated that there were too many English educated Christian ministers and permanent secretaries. Prime Minister Goh went on to imply that the First Defendant would damage racial harmony in Singapore.
   
2. The same article reported that at the rally Ker Sin Tze, the Fifth Plaintiff in this action, stated that if the First Defendant were elected to Parliament, minority communities would feel very uncomfortable. He went on to state that the election of the First Defendant would cause a similar result as that which occurred in Australia following the MP Pauline Hanson’s remarks about race and culture: Singapore’s trade, tourism and reputation would be damaged.
    
3. On 29 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled: "English education, religion don’t affect duties: Dr. Tan". The article quoted Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan, a Plaintiff in a related action and a senior member of the PAP at length. He endorsed the PAP campaign against the First Defendant. He also supported the analogy made between the First Defendant and the Australian MP, Pauline Hanson, by the Fifth Plaintiff, Dr. Ker Sin Tze, as set out in paragraph (h) above.
    
4. In an article published by the Straits Times on 29 December 1996 entitled "PAP focuses on Tang Liang Hong threat" it was reported that Dr. Ow Chin Hock, the Third Plaintiff in this action, had stated that the First Defendant posed a danger to Singapore’s multi-cultural and multi-racial society. Ch’ng Jit Koon, the Second Plaintiff had also been a participant in the press conference. The article also reported that Prime Minister Goh had released several documents to the press regarding the First Defendant and that he had stated that the First Defendant would, if elected to Parliament, have a "damaging impact" on Singapore’s multi-racial and multi-lingual society. Among the documents were letters from Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Plaintiffs, all of whom were prominent members of the PAP. All of these letters stated that the First Defendant held extreme positions on issues such as Chinese language, culture and civilization. The article also reported that SM Lee had stated that the First Defendant’s views on race and culture were dangerous.
    
5. On 30 December 1996 the Straits Times, in an article entitled "Prime Minister Goh : I’m ready to go to court" reported a speech made by Prime Minister Goh at a PAP rally in Jalan Basar. He used the speech to repeat his allegations that the First Defendant is a Chinese chauvinist.
    
6. In an article entitled "More Chinese-educated needed in parliament too many Christians in cabinet" published on 31 December 1996 in the Straits Times, statements made by Seng Han Thong, the Sixth Plaintiff, at a PAP rally on 30 December 1996 were reported. He stated that the First Defendant had told him that more Chinese-educated people were needed in Parliament and that there were too many Christians in the Cabinet.
    
7. On 31 December 1996 the Business Times, under the heading "Heard and Seen", quoted SM Lee as saying of the First Defendant: "If he’s against the English-educated, he must be against the Malay-educated even more. If he is against Christianity, he must be against Islam even more because Islam represents even a deeper exclusiveness. So this approach must be destructive".
    
8. In three official election pamphlets published by the PAP allegations were made against the First Defendant:

1. On 31 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled "Tang must be dealt with before the damage is done". The article reported comments made by Prime Minister Goh on the previous evening regarding the First Defendant. Prime Minister Goh stated that the First Defendant possessed extreme views on Chinese language and culture which would damage Singapore and its relations with other countries. He warned that the First Defendant held similar views to the Australian MP, Pauline Hanson, who had expressed anti-Asian views which had divided Australians and caused increased attacks against immigrants. Such had been the revulsion at her remarks that Malaysia had reconsidered its policy of sending its students to Australian universities.
    
2. On 31 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled "Chinese-educated must decide what they want for the future". In the said article SM Lee stated that the First Defendant had behaved like the racist Australian MP, Pauline Hanson, who expressed racist views on language and culture; that he intended to introduce a Chinese dominated society which would destroy racial peace by causing conflict between the different races in Singapore; and that it was important to create a society in which people such as the First Defendant were not able to express racial views or behave in a racist and abusive manner towards other people.
    
3. On 31 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled: "Why Chinese chauvinism will destroy S’pore: SM". The article reported a speech made by SM Lee on the previous day. It reported that he had stated that the First Defendant was a Chinese chauvinist and that if Singapore allowed his Chinese chauvinism to infect Singapore it would result in its destruction. It would cause the Chinese to seek a dominant role for their race, culture and languages over other races, cultures and languages. The racial conflict that would come about as the result of this would be similar to that which occurred in Rwanda, Somalia, the Lebanon and former Yugoslavia. It would result in the deaths of a significant proportion of the population of Singapore. Singapore could go the way of Beirut; its highly successful, wealthy and peaceful status would be destroyed by inter-racial warfare.
    
4. On 1 January 1997 the Lianhe Zaobao published an article entitled "Two Deputy Prime Ministers Join the Campaign to Assist Cheng San Constituency". The article reported that Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan Keng Yam had stated that the First Defendant was an anti-Christian and anti-English-educated Chinese chauvinist whose views could cause great problems for Singapore. Mr. Lee was also reported as stating that the First Defendant constituted a threat to the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious society of Singapore. A similar report appeared in the Straits Times on the same date under the heading: "DPMs join in battle for Cheng San".
    
5. On 2 January 1997 the Straits Times published an article entitled "PAP leaders put reputation at stake in Cheng San". The article reported that Prime Minister Goh had stated at a rally on the previous evening that he was so determined to stop the First Defendant from entering Parliament that he was entering the battle for Cheng San GRC to fight against the dangerous Chinese chauvinism represented by the First Defendant.
    
6. On 7 January 1997 the Straits Times published an article entitled "Let’s take the middle path to maintain racial harmony." It reported that Prime Minister Goh had stated that the First Defendant had chauvinistic views and that if people such as the First Defendant entered Parliament their attempts to make Chinese the dominant language in Singapore would threaten racial harmony.

7.7 The First Defendant had not in truth expressed extremist views either at the dinner in 1994 or on any other occasion. He is not an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist or anti-English-educated or a racist. His views would not cause social or racial disharmony or disruption in Singapore. On the contrary he is and was at all material times a firm believer in religious, educational cultural and racial harmony. He had given the Plaintiffs in this and in the related actions no reason to suppose otherwise. Accordingly there was no basis in truth for the defamatory charges leveled against the First Defendant by the plaintiffs. The First Defendant will invite the inference that the Plaintiffs in this and the related actions combined together to misrepresent the First Defendant’s beliefs and opinions for their own political ends. 

7.8 On 30 December 1996 the First Defendant gave an interview to Ahmad Osman of the Straits Times. During the course of the interview the First Defendant stated that the allegations made against him, namely that he is an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist, were lies. The interview was published by the Straits Times on the following day. Subsequently SM Lee, Goh Chok Tong and the Plaintiffs in this action, Teo Chee Hean, Ch’ng Jit Koon, Ow Chin Hock, Chin Harn Tong, Ker Sin Tze and Seng Han Thong decided in combination with one another to issue proceedings against the First Defendant for defamation. The essence of their claim was that the First Defendant had called them liars during the course of the aforementioned interview. On 31 December 1996 SM Lee served a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 2523. On 1 January 1997 Goh Chok Tong caused a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 2524. On 1 January 1997 Teo Chee Hean, Ch'ng Jit Koon, Ow Chin Hock, Chin Harn Tong, Ker Sin Tze and Seng Han Thong served a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 2525. The Statements of Claim in all three actions were served on 10 January 1997. The First Defendant will contend that the purpose and motive of the Plaintiffs in instituting these actions was to utilise the judicial process in order to further impede the First Defendant’s chances of political success in Singapore. 

7.9 On 1 January 1997 the First Defendant filed two police reports to the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post. One of the reports complained about the activities of Goh Chok Tong, Teo Chee Hean, Lee Yock Suan, Ow Chin Hock, Tony Tan, Ker Sin Tze, Chin Harn Tong, Ch'ng Jit Koon, the Plaintiff, Seng Han Thong and Lee Hsien Loong. It alleged that those persons had made a number of statements calculated to make the public believe that the First Defendant was an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist; anti-English-educated; and that some of his statements will cause social and racial disharmony and disruption in Singapore. It further stated that these allegations were groundless, without factual basis and intended to harm the First Defendant’s reputation and to defame him. The report went on to state that the persons named in the report had, as a result of the publication of their statements: incited certain groups of people to believe that the First Defendant is anti-Christian and anti-English-educated persons; were likely to incite religious extremists to hate the First Defendant and to cause harm to him and members of his family; and repeatedly challenged and provoked the First Defendant to make statements in public which they have said may cause social disorder in Singapore. the First Defendant requested the police to investigate these matters on an urgent basis. 

7.10 On 13 January 1997 Lee Hsien Loong served a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 70 of 1997. On 14 January 1997 Tony Tan Keng Yam served a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 76 of 1997. On 20 January 1996 Lee Yock Suan served a Writ of Summons in Suit No. 82 of 1997. These three actions were for defamation founded on the contents of the police report filed by the First Defendant on 1 January 1997. The First Defendant will contend that these proceedings were instituted in order to overwhelm him with litigation so that he will be put to huge expense and will be unable to pursue his political career, rather than to restore and vindicate the reputations of the Plaintiffs.  

7.11 Subsequently, six further actions for defamation have been issued against the First Defendant as follows: 

(i) Suit No.172 of 1997 by SM Lee and Lee Hsien Loong;

(ii) Suits No. 181 of 1997 by the SM Lee;

(iii) Suits No. 182 of 1997 SM Lee;

(iv) Suits No. 187 of 1997 by Goh Chok Tong;

(v) Suits No. 188 of 1997 (this action) by Teo Chee Hean, Ch'ng Jit Koon, Ow Chin Hock, Chin Harn Tong, Ker Sin Tze and Seng

Han Thong; and

(vi) Suits No. 244 of 1997 by Goh Chok Tong.  

The First Defendant will contend that these proceedings were instituted in order to overwhelm him with litigation so that he will be put to huge expense and will be unable to pursue his political career, rather than to restore and vindicate the reputations of the Plaintiffs.  

7.12 In support of the contention that the defamation actions listed above were part of an ongoing political campaign against him by the Plaintiffs in this and in the related actions, who were prepared to resort to any means available not only to defeat the First Defendant at the General Election but to ruin him politically, the First Defendant will rely on:

7.13 Although no judgment had been entered or liability established, Mareva injunctions were applied for on 27 January 1997 by the Plaintiffs in Suits Nos. 1116, 2523, 2524, 2525 of 1996 and Suits Nos. 70, 76, 82, 172, 181, 182 187 and 188. Such an application by the plaintiffs in a libel action before judgment is unprecedented. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs in those actions applied for Teo Siew Har, the First Defendant’s wife, to be joined as the Second Defendant in the actions, despite the fact that there is no subsisting cause of action against her. Consequently, a Mareva injunction should not have been applied for against her. It is also contended that the amount of the Mareva injunction, S$11,200,000 is disproportionate to any damages likely to be awarded to the Plaintiffs.  

7.14 On the evening of 27 January 1997 Teo Siew Har, having earlier been prevented from carrying out a brief visit to friends in Malaysia, returned home only to be served, on the instructions of the said Plaintiffs, with the said Mareva injunction. Immediately following that, at 11.00 p.m., her home was raided by a group of at least ten people claiming to be tax officials. They stayed at her home until 4:00 a.m. the following morning. During the course of the visit many of the Tang family’s personal possessions were handled. The men took away 76 boxes of Teo Siew Har’s and the First Defendant’s documents as well as a number of personal possessions. At the same time the First Defendant’s law practice, Tang & Co., was raided in a similar manner. 

8. The Defendant admits that he is responsible in law for the republication in the Straits Times of the words admittedly spoken by him. Otherwise paragraph 20 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted. 

9. Paragraph 21 and 22 of the Statement of Claim are denied. 

10. It is denied that the Plaintiffs are entitled to aggravated damages whether by reason of the matters set out in paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim or at all. Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim is denied. 

11. Unless expressly admitted above, all allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim are denied and the Plaintiffs put to proof of them.

Dated this 4th day of March 1997.

______________________________

Solicitors for the First Defendant