Dr Lee Wei
Ling: "i will no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me
freedom of speech. in fact, that was the reason why i posted the article on LKY
would not want to be hero-worshipped." (Facebook on 1 April 2016 at
1.07pm)
Janadas Devan:
"Reading Wei Ling’s unedited writings was like sailing through a fog. The
effort of turning her raw material into coherent articles — that’s what I
remember most about editing Wei Ling." (Facebook on 4 April 2016 at 3.05pm
and Straits Times on 5 April 2016)
Dr Lee Wei Ling
is the daughter of Singapore's former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and Janadas Devan is
the son of Singapore's third President, C.V. Devan Nair [1].
By now, many will
be aware that following Dr Lee Wei Ling’s Facebook post on 1 April 2016, a
public spat ensued between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Janadas Devan [2]. Reading their feisty online exchanges sparked
off an interest in me to find out more about the relationship between their
respective fathers, Lee Kuan Yew and Devan Nair.
For the most part
of their lives, Lee and Nair [3] were political comrades. But in their later years, they were bitterly
suing each other in court.
Public records
bear witness to a tragic tale of close cronies turning into feuding foes. When
the People’s Action Party was formed on 21 November 1954, Lee and Nair were
among its founding members. Nair is credited for helping to establish the
Singapore National Trades Union Congress. On 23 October 1981, Nair was elected
by Parliament as Singapore’s third President.
Then on 28 March
1985, Nair resigned as President of Singapore without completing his term of
office. In 1988, Nair left Singapore for
good and never came back.
Singapore
High Court: Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan (1988)
On 6 May 1988, Francis
Seow was detained under the Internal Security Act (Cap. 143). On 22 May 1988, Nair publicly spoke up for
Francis Seow, questioning the basis for his detention without trial. Lee, taking offence to certain parts of Nair's
public statements, took swift action and sued Nair for defamation three days
later on 25 May 1988.
Initially, Lee’s
lawsuit cited two instances of alleged libel arising from Nair’s comments made
to the media on 22 May 1988. Then on 7 April 1989, Lee added a third instance
of alleged libel to his lawsuit against Nair, citing Nair’s alleged libellous
comments as contained in an article
written by a reporter published in The Straits Times on 23 May 1988.
In response to
this additional claim by Lee, Nair applied to Court to drag the newspaper into
the fray to share the blame (if any) with him.
The newspaper protested vigorously, but the Court agreed with Nair,
observing that the newspaper had made its own decision to republish Nair’s
press statement. So Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd became a party to the
lawsuit. This meant that if the Court
were to decide that Nair’s comments were libellous, the newspaper could be made to
share liability with Nair to pay damages to Lee.
Lee’s 1988
lawsuit lasted over four years and spawned two reported interim court
decisions, one on 3 September 1990 [4] and the other on 8 December
1992 [5]. As to the final outcome of that lawsuit,
whether it was won, lost or discontinued, I do not know. I have not been able
to find out what happened to Lee’s 1988 lawsuit. If anyone knows, do share.
Ontario
Supreme Court: Lee v. Globe and Mail, Nair (1999)
On 29 March 1999,
the Canadian newspaper, Globe and Mail published an article [6] entitled ‘Singapore Sage’
reporting on an interview with Nair. In
that article, Nair alleged that Lee had Singapore doctors slip hallucinatory
drugs to Nair to make him appear befuddled.
In June 1999, Lee
filed a lawsuit in Canada against Globe and Mail and Nair for
defamation.
In response to
Lee’s lawsuit, Globe and Mail filed their Statement of Defence, pleading
the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege. Lee countered by applying to court to strike
out certain parts of their Defence.
However, the Court decided [7] to dismiss Lee’s striking out
application with costs.
As for Nair, he
responded by filing a Counterclaim against Lee, seeking damages on the basis
that Lee's lawsuit was an abuse of process. Nair argued that the real purpose
of Lee's lawsuit was to silence, not only Nair, but all of Lee's critics and
opposition in Singapore. According to Nair, Lee's action was part of a pattern
of using the libel process to silence his critics and opposition and was
"a mere stalking horse intended to further foster and continue a climate
of fear and intimidation". [8]
In turn, Lee
filed a Motion to have Nair's Counterclaim thrown out of court. As it turns
out, the Canadian Court found merits in Nair's arguments and allowed Nair's Counterclaim
to stand. Once again, Lee found his court application dismissed with costs. [9]
Lee having failed
to strike out certain parts of the newspaper’s Defence and to strike out Nair’s
Counterclaim, the parties (Lee, Globe and Mail and Nair) were left to slug it out in
Court in respect of Lee's defamation lawsuit, Globe and Mail’s Defence
and Nair's Counterclaim.
But the legal
case never got much further after that and was eventually discontinued. Nair’s
mental health had overtaken him.
On 1 July 2004, Globe
and Mail reported [10] that Nair had been diagnosed
as suffering from early dementia that he was no longer able to give evidence in
court proceedings.
That terse report
also stated that as to Nair’s allegation in the ‘Singapore Sage’ article that
Lee had Singapore doctors slip hallucinatory drugs to Nair to make him appear
befuddled, “Mr Nair's family has said that, having reviewed the record, there
is no basis for this allegation.”
Nair passed away
in Canada on 7 December 2005. He was 82.
Nair gave the best years of his life to public service in
Singapore. His final resting place is a
grave in Hamilton, Canada.
by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
 |
| Photo by Dr Thum Ping Tjin, used here with his kind permission. |
 |
| Photo by Dr Thum Ping Tjin, used here with his kind permission. |
[1]
http://www.istana.gov.sg/the-president/former-presidents/mr-devan-nair
[2]
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dr-lee-made-serious-allegation-about-my-conduct-journalist-janadas-devan
[3]
http://www.istana.gov.sg/the-president/former-presidents/mr-devan-nair
[4]
Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan [1990] SGHC 59 (3 September 1990)
[5]
Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan (Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd and another, third
parties) [1992] SGHC 303
(8 December 1992)
[6]
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90329gm.htm
[7]
Lee v. Globe and Mail, decision of Swinton J on 30 January 2001 at:
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/ontario/superior-court-of-justice/2001/01/30/lee-v-globe-and-mail-2001-28035-on-sc.shtml
[8]
For a report on Nair’s counterclaim against Lee, see this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20061101004557/http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=252
[9]
The Canadian Court's written judgment dated 7 January 2002 is at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061101024125/http://www.sgmlaw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=38
[10]
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040701gm.htm
