A*STAR was also aggrieved and was likewise threatening to take legal action.

The blogger, Chen Jiahao, 23, was a graduate student in the chemical physics PhD program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Writing as AcidFlask, and using the university's account, he maintained a weblog (or "blog") called caustic.soda.

According to his open letter, dated 6 May 2005, he said,

On April 22 (Friday), I received the first email from Mr. Philip Yeo, chairman of A*STAR ... which notified me that he had earmarked a post on my blog (#442) for legal action. Over the next three days he sent me a total of eleven emails which were of a threatening and insulting nature, demanding that I remove "all" the posts on my blog or face legal action for defaming A*STAR and himself.

Chen claimed that he had no idea which specific entry had caused offence.

Despite writing to him three times seeking clarification by email, he had refused to elaborate on which specific remarks he had found offensive and reiterated his demand to remove "everything" on my blog.

Further down in his letter, he said,

Out of over 400 posts on my blog, perhaps ten or so mentioned Mr. Yeo or A*STAR by name.

The story then broke on the Straits Times on 7 May. It is still unclear what allegation it was that Chen made that Yeo and A*STAR considered defamatory. The Straits Times' story reported that "A*Star declined to reveal the exact nature of the statement on its lawyers' advice, as this would amount to repeating the libel."

Would it?

And the question for this essay:  is this civil servant's response to Chen in the best interest of Singapore?

* * * * *

Before we go on, a bit of background may be necessary. Chen Jiahao was a "bondbreaker", which means he once had a government scholarship, in return for which he was obliged to serve in the civil service or related government agency after graduation, for an agreed number of years.

In recent years, one of the issues has been that of scholarship holders breaking their bonds upon graduation, by paying a penalty sum. Although that penalty would mean the funding agency did not suffer any loss, many felt that those who accepted a scholarship had a moral obligation to see it through and serve out the bond, contributing to the country. Otherwise, Singapore would have been deprived of services, and another student, perhaps more responsible to Singapore, might have been deprived of the opportunity of getting a scholarship.

There are at the same time, valid arguments for being more understanding of bondbreaking. Chen's case was featured in the New Paper on 5 April. The key elements of his case were:

• Under his scholarship, Chen had 3 years to do his basic degree at the University of Illinois. He did it in 2.
• He qualified for a master's degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which would be a 2-year undertaking. He figured that since the Public Service Commission's policy was generally to allow a further one year for a postgraduate degree (totalling 4 years), he would be permitted to finish his master's (2+2 years) before having to return to do his National Service.
• The PSC refused his request and he had to do his National Service after graduation in 2002. At the same time, his father passed away and he was left with an inheritance, which he used when he had completed his National Service to pay off his bond. He then left to pursue further studies in the US (presumably on his own account) though the offer by MIT had lapsed by then.

In his writings, Chen sounded somewhat bitter, but as for whether A*STAR should or should not have been more flexible, I will let the reader weigh the issue for himself.

The more pertinent point is that given this background, Philip Yeo, who had personally been responsible for managing government scholarships, could be expected to think bondbreakers irresponsible, and it was possible that he and A*STAR were not inclined to be too forgiving for whatever Chen said in his weblog.

* * * * *

Eventually, Chen took down his blog and made the asked-for unreserved apology to Philip Yeo and A*STAR, together with an undertaking "not to repeat the statements, or make further statements of the same or similar effect in this or any other forum or media."

So the matter will not be tested in court because Chen succumbed.

Did this episode really serve the public interest of justice? I don't think so. The public interest is not just for justice to be done, but also for it to be seen to be done. Here, so many details were opaque, the parties so unevenly matched, that many people would read from it a case of bullying rather than justice. As another blogger said, a case of David and Goliath. And as suggested by the reference, you know on which side their sympathies lie.

Defamation suits in Singapore have a noxious history. Almost everyone outside the ruling PAP except the most politically apathetic believes that they have been some of the biggest, most chilling factors that help to perpetuate the PAP in power. Political opponents have been silenced by such suits, especially with huge damages awarded. People don't see political defamation suits as an exercise of justice, but of political suppression.

Now, Philip Yeo is not a politician; he is a civil servant, though a very senior one. Thus, in people's eyes, he is part of the government, and neither he nor A*STAR can easily escape association with the notoriety of defamation suits instituted by cabinet ministers against opposition politicians.

What was it that Chen said that was objectionable and untrue? It would have been far better for it to be revealed and debated in the court of public opinion. Particularly in the case of A*STAR, this was a taxpayer-financed agency and it must be accountable to the public (though some may argue that the same can be said for taxpayer-financed civil servants like Philip Yeo). If there were allegations about impropriety, those allegations should have been heard and if untrue, rebutted in public, in order to restore public trust.

Issuing a legal ultimatum and demanding that the words not even be reported did precisely the opposite. It was equivalent to shooting the speaker (and muzzling any other speaker) without ever dealing with the substance of the allegations. Far from satisfying public trust, it made it look as if public servants did not want to be accountable to the public.

People would have reason to see this incident as an act of bullying.

Yeo and A*STAR might argue that Chen could have had his day in court [1] when the words used would have had to be aired and he would have been given a chance to justify them.

This would be sophistry. We cannot pretend that various factors made it nearly impossible to Chen to take up this challenge. Damages awarded by Singapore courts have run into enormous sums of money, and there was no knowing what Chen would be liable for if he lost. Here was a highly-paid civil servant and a government agency, rich enough to hire the best lawyers in the world, taking on a poor graduate student. Did anyone seriously expect Chen to take up the challenge of his day in court?

In the Middle Ages, trial by combat and trial by torture were among the means of establishing guilt or innocence. The belief was that God would always be on the side of the truth. So legal challenges were settled by duel or torture. God would intervene, it was believed, to protect the truthful and innocent, so if you got killed in the duel, or if you couldn't withstand the torture, then God must have deserted you, which meant you couldn't have been innocent or truthful.

They were certainly effective ways of getting a decision, but were they effective ways of ensuring justice?

Does our resorting to defamation suits resemble this medieval practice? Instead of combat and torture, is Singapore's habit that of trial by financial resources?

Sure, if indeed the allegations were injurious and false, Philip Yeo and A*STAR must have the right to legal recourse, but wisdom and the larger interest of Singapore should have counselled 2 other courses of action:

• Permit reporting of the allegations provided such reporting was always accompanied by the statement that Yeo and the agency denied them and were suing the originator for defamation.
• State in advance that the suit would not ask for more than token damages.

This way, the publicly funded agency would remain accountable and open to public scrutiny, yet they would still get legal vindication if the allegations were baseless. In other words, they would get what they wanted without adding to the climate of fear that so stunts Singapore's political and cultural development, without bringing upon themselves the opprobrium of being seen as bullies. 

© Yawning Bread