1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim are admitted. 

2. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Statement of Claim are admitted.

3. Insofar as the words set out in paragraph 13 were spoken by the Defendant, and insofar as those words were spoken in the presence of and/or hearing of Ahmad Osman and Leong Mun Kwai, paragraph 13 is admitted. In all other respects paragraph 13 is denied. 

4. 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 14 is denied.

5. Paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim is admitted. 

6. As stated above, 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 16 is not admitted. 

7. Insofar as the words spoken by the Defendant referred to the "PM" (but not otherwise) it is admitted that the Defendant's words would have been understood to refer to the Plaintiff. Otherwise paragraph 17 of the Statement of Claim is denied.

8. It is denied that the words spoken by the Defendant, either in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo, bore the meanings alleged in paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim. 

9. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof in response to paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim. Otherwise paragraph 19 is denied. 

10. Further or alternatively the words spoken by the Defendant were true in substance and in fact.

i. The Defendant is neither anti-Christian nor anti-Islam nor anti-Malay nor a Chinese chauvinist nor anti-English educated nor a danger to society. On the contrary he is and was at all material times a firm believer in religious, educational and racial harmony.

ii. In or about August 1994 the Defendant gave a talk to a National Day dinner, which was attended by Teo Chee Hean, about religious harmony and the steady development of society. Nothing in that talk could possibly warrant the conclusion that the Defendant was a racist or held any of the views referred to in (i) above.

iii. In December 1996 the Defendant was nominated as a candidate in the forthcoming General Election on behalf of the Worker's Party ("the WP"). He stood as a candidate in the Cheng San GRC. The Plaintiffs in this action and the Plaintiffs in Suit Nos. 2523 and 2525 of 1996 and Suit Nos. 70 and 82 of 1997 ("the related actions") the related actions are all prominent members of the People's Action Party ("the PAP") . It is their fervent wish to prevent by all possible means the election of any opposition Member of Parliament in Singapore. In support of this allegation the Defendant will rely, inter alia, upon statements made on behalf of the PAP by the Plaintiff, and reported respectively in the issue of the Straits Times for 30 and 31 December 1996 to the effect that of course he was biassed and wanted to keep the Defendant out of Parliament; that he was so determined to stop the Defendant getting into Parliament that he was himself standing in the Cheng San GRC constituency and that the fact that the 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".

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

v. The 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 Defendant being returned as a Member of Parliament and deliberated how best to ensure that he was discredited and in due course defeated. The Defendant will give further particulars of this allegation after discovery and/or interrogatories and/or service of witness statements.

vi. As a result of the deliberations referred to at (v) above, the Plaintiffs along with the Plaintiffs in the related actions over the period from 26 December 1996 until the General Election made a large number of public statements concerning the Defendant in which he was variously described as

(a) anti-Christian;

(b) a Chinese chauvinist;

(c) anti-English-educated;

(d) a dangerous character;

(e) being against the Malay-educated;

(f) being anti-Islam; and

(g) being anti-Malay.

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

(a) as reported in the issue of the Straits Times for 27 December 1996, Rear Admiral Teo, the Environment Minister and a prominent member of the PAP and a Plaintiff in one of the related actions, alleged that at a dinner he had attended in Singapore in 1994 the Defendant had said "improper things", drawn outrageous implications and indulged in dangerous talk, with the result that he (Teo) had concluded that the 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;

(b) according to the same issue of the Straits Times the Plaintiff described the 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";

(c) in the same article it was reported that Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon, a prominent member of the PAP and a Plaintiff in a related action, had stated that the Defendant had "rather extreme and insensitive" views on culture and ethnic issues, and had stated that the Defendant "was inclined to speak like a Chinese chauvinist";

(d) the article also reported that Dr Ker Sin Tze, a prominent member of the PAP and a Plaintiff in a related action, had said that the Defendant held radical views on the promotion of Chinese language and culture, and had pushed for 45 per cent of teaching hours in primary schools to be devoted to Chinese. He stated that the Defendant had also once said: "English-educated Chinese who do not have a good grasp of their culture and do not feel embarrassed about it are likely to lack respect for their own kind and confidence in themselves." He also alleged that the Defendant had said that the knowledge which really mattered in life and which determined the quality of life for Chinese people could only be expressed in Chinese, not English;

(e) the article went on to refer to comments about the Defendant made by Dr Ow Chin Hock, a prominent member of the PAP and a Plaintiff in a related action. He stated that he had two reservations about the Defendant: his "extreme positions on Chinese language and culture issues" and his "emotional and temperamental" nature;

(f) 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 that Lee Kuan Yew, a prominent member of the PAP and a Plaintiff in a related action, had accused the Defendant and J.B. Jeyaretnam, the head of the Workers' Party, of being "language chauvinists" brought together by political opportunism and that the Defendant was a "Chinese-language chauvinist". Mr Lee went on to state that both men's cultural chauvinism proved they were political opportunists. Mr Lee also alleged that the Defendant had stated that there were too many Christians in Parliament;

(g) on 27 December 1996 the Straits Times published an article entitled "Serious Men vs Opportunists". This article reported comments made by the Plaintiff and Lee Kuan Yew that the 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. Mr Lee stated that the Defendant was "anti-English-educated and anti-Christian." The Plaintiff also stated that:

(i) several Members of Parliament had urged that the Defendant should not be allowed to enter Parliament as his views could divide the country; and that

(ii) the Defendant had said in a speech in 1994 that many Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants were Christians and English-educated. The Plaintiff 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.

(viii) the Defendant had not in truth expressed extremist views either at the dinner in 1994 or on any other occasion; he is not a racist or a chauvinist; above all, he wants to achieve harmony in the multi-ethnic Singaporean community. He had given the Plaintiffs no reason to suppose otherwise. The Defendant repeats paragraph (i) of these Particulars. 

(ix) accordingly there was no basis in truth for the charges levelled against the Defendant by the Plaintiff and by the Plaintiffs in the related actions, all of whom were guilty of deliberately or recklessly misrepresenting the Defendant's beliefs and opinions for their own political ends and of engaging in dubious and unfair election tactics designed to ruin the chances of the Defendant being elected;

(x) further the false accusations of racism, chauvinism, religious bigotry and threatening to undermine the political stability of Singapore were defamatory of the Defendant and/or calculated to cause social and racial disharmony and/or amounted to incitement to individual groups to oppose and threaten harm to the Defendant and to his family. As such they amounted or might well have amounted to breaches of the Penal Code and merited investigation by the police;

(xi) on 1st January 1997 the Defendant lodged with the police two reports in regard to the matters referred to in paragraph (x), to the full terms of which the Defendant will refer at trial.

(xii) in the General Election on 2 January 1997, the WP candidates received 44,132 votes. But the PAP candidates received 53,553 votes. Accordingly the Defendant was not elected. The Defendant will contend that the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiffs in the related actions achieved, by foul means and by spreading falsehoods about the Defendant, the objective of preventing the Defendant being elected.

11. The Defendant will, if necessary, rely on Section 8 of the Defamation Act. 

12. Further, or in the further alternative, the said words were published by the Defendant in order to defend himself against charges and attacks which had been levelled against him by the Plaintiff and others, which charges and attacks had received the widest possible publicity throughout Singapore. Accordingly the said words were published on an occasion of qualified privilege.

13. Paragraph 20 of the Statement of Claim is denied. 

14. Paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim is expressly denied. The Plaintiffs suffered no damage by reason of the words spoken by the Defendant. Alternatively if any such damage was suffered by the Plaintiff, it was suffered by reason of the attacks on the Defendant in which the Plaintiffs joined (as alleged in the Particulars under paragraph 12 hereof) and on that account the Defendant should not be held liable therefor. 

15. It is denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages whether by reason of the matters particularised in paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim or at all. 

16. Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted the Defendants deny each and every allegation of fact contained in the Statement of Claim as if the same were set forth herein and specifically traversed. 

Dated the 24th day of January, 1997. 

__________________________

Solicitors for the Defendant 
To : The abovenamed Plaintiff
& his solicitors
M/s Allen & Gledhill
(Y/Ref: SHK/FMS/js/13793/963)