Chiam See Tong v Singapore Democratic Party

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 294
• Date: 10 December 1993
• Subject Matter: Members of disciplinary tribunal conducted hearing in a confrontational and adversarial manner,Plaintiff not told clearly of the case he was to meet at disciplinary hearing,Administrative Law,Whether emaciated tribunal envisaged by party constitution,Real complaint not heard,Conduct of disciplinary proceedings fell far short of the norm of fairness which a disciplinary tribunal may be expected to observe,Conduct,Claim for wrongful expulsion from political party,Effect of disqualification of majority of members,Disciplinary tribunals,Composition,Political party constitution's requirements for composition of disciplinary committee,Natural justice
• Docket Number: Suit No 1762 of 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Low and Patrick Seong (Peter Low Seong Tan & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmond Pereira and Steven Lee (Edmond Pereira & Pnrs)

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiff`s claim is for wrongful expulsion from the defendant political party and for consequential reliefs.

The facts

The Singapore Democratic Party is a political party registered as a society under the Societies Act (Cap 311). The plaintiff was its founder, or one of its founders. He served as the secretary-general until his resignation from that position on 17 May 1993 in circumstances to which I shall refer in a moment. He has since 1984 been a member of Parliament for the Potong Pasir constituency, elected on the party ticket.

Almost all, if not all, the events relevant to this case took place only from the beginning of this year, although the underlying causes undoubtedly went back much further. It appears that at the party conference held in January, new names were elected to the CEC. From the little that has been revealed in evidence in this case, it would appear that this led to an erosion of the plaintiff`s hitherto unchallenged authority over the party.

On 17 May this year, the plaintiff attended a regular meeting of the party`s central executive committee (`CEC`). At that time, a CEC member, Dr Chee Soon Juan, had gone on a hunger strike in protest against the termination of his employment with the National University of Singapore on account of some alleged misuse of the university`s research funds. The plaintiff, who had at first supported Dr Chee in his protest, became concerned about what the particular form of protest Dr Chee had chosen might do to the image of the party. At the meeting, he sought to table a motion of censure of Dr Chee. No one supported him. He could not even get leave to do so. He took this as a vote of no confidence in him as the secretary-general, something which had not happened before. He decided to resign, and on the spot wrote out a letter of resignation and handed it to Mr Ling How Doong, the chairman of the party and of the CEC. There is a minor difference in evidence as to what was said as the plaintiff walked out of the meeting. But there is no dispute that the plaintiff said something like `The press will get to know about this tomorrow` and no dispute that Mr Ling said `If you do it, I [or we] will sack you.`

Several attempts were made to persuade the plaintiff to withdraw his resignation, but to no avail. The plaintiff would not withdraw his resignation unless Mr Wong Hong Toy, a member of the CEC, was removed from that body. The plaintiff suspected that Wong was behind a move to remove him as the leader of the party and was trying to split the party. The plaintiff`s condition was not acceptable, and the efforts at persuading him to change his mind came to nothing.

The plaintiff told me that there had already been other differences between him and the others on the CEC, and the issue of the motion of censure of Dr Chee was the last straw. It is clear that, though apparently precipitate, the resignation was not an impulsive thing.

On 18 June, the CEC issued a news release announcing the plaintiff`s resignation as the party`s secretary-general. The statement was an attempt at putting an agreeable and positive face to the underlying differences between the plaintiff and his by now estranged party colleagues. It spoke of the plaintiff in laudatory terms and recorded his contributions to the party and the cause of opposition politics in Singapore. It described the plaintiff`s departure as a `milestone` in the party`s political development. The plaintiff, however, thought that all this sounded more like a political obituary, and said so to reporters who had gathered outside his home on the evening the statement was released. Compared to what he was to say later, he was rather restrained in what he said on this occasion, but he said enough to indicate that he had not been able to see eye to eye with those now in control of the party. The Straits Times newspaper the next morning carried a report of the interview under the headline `Chiam quits as SDP`s sec-gen over "differences"`. On 21 June, the remaining CEC members issued a circular to members of the party, saying that the plaintiff had been in disagreement with the rest of the CEC over a number of issues for some time. It referred to the meeting at which he resigned and also the unacceptable condition he had imposed for his return.

Singapore Press Club interview

The plaintiff decided to take his differences with the party to the public. On 16 July, he was invited to give a talk to the Singapore Press Club on the future of the opposition in Singapore. In answer to questions following his talk, he elaborated on the reasons for his resignation. He said that some of the party leaders were not credible while others were motivated by self-interest. In particular, he commented on Mr Wong Hong Toy`s criminal record, and Dr Chee`s dismissal from the university because of his misuse of research funds. He also told the press that Mr Ling and Mr Cheo Chai Chen, who were the party`s members of Parliament for Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central respectively, were running their respective town councils like their own `little kingdoms`. He said a good deal more, all critical of those now in control of the party. What he said all came out in the newspapers. There is no suggestion that he was misquoted by any of them.

On 26 July, a meeting of the CEC members took place. Eight members attended. It was decided to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff. A draft letter to the plaintiff had been prepared, and the participants at this meeting worked on it.

On 28 July, the plaintiff received a letter signed by Dr Chee for the CEC requiring him to appear on 6 August before the CEC sitting as a disciplinary committee. I had better set out the letter, long though it may be:

You are hereby informed that you are to attend on 6 August 1993, at 7.30pm, at the party headquarters (920-A Upper Thomson Road, S 2678), before the central executive committee sitting as a disciplinary committee to explain the following:

(1) your remarks made on various occasions including the interviews, conferences, and speeches you gave to the press (see photocopies of reports enclosed) that were derogatory of the party leadership and detrimental to the party`s interests. These include your statements about:

(a) disassociating yourself from CEC members `who are definitely going in the wrong direction` when in fact that is not the reason stated in your letter of resignation;

(b) the opposition needing `members who were credible, clean and trustworthy` and that the party`s present leadership does not accept the idea of establishing an opposition party that is accepted and recognized as trustworthy;

(c) the `control and running` of the town councils run by the party`s MPs causing `problems which split the party` and `central control` over the party`s town councils which was originally meant by you to be an arrangement in which you attempted to involve the other MPs in a scheme whereby the central control would be through a private company run by Mr William Lau with the three MPs as shareholders;

(d) CEC members being employed by the town councils as `people who cannot find a job outside` and that these CEC members could not `vote according to conscience - but obligation - when it came to party matters`;

(e) CEC members having questionable records such as Mr Wong Hong Toy`s previous criminal conviction, who was the co-accused with Mr JB Jeyaretnam, without clarifying that the convictions had been criticized by Singapore`s highest judicial authority, the Privy Council, as wrong, and that these two persons were convicted of offences for which they were not guilty of and when in fact you and Mr William Lau were the ones who invited him to join the party;

(f) Mr Wong Hong Toy`s dishonesty and that you gave him `the benefit of a doubt but things did not turn out as expected`;

(g) Dr Chee Soon Juan`s dismissal by the NUS `over $200` when you had in fact defended him previously including in a Parliamentary debate and had subsequently bargained with him to cross over to `your` side even after your resignation was made public including an offer you made to ask Dr Chee`s wife to go over to work in PPTC;

(h) your dropping of Dr Chee`s case whom you were representing when he refused to go `over` to your side and Dr Chee`s;

(i) the party`s present leadership collapsing as a result of clashes in personalities` self-interests and that Mr Ling How Doong, MP (Bukit Gombak) and Mr Cheo Chai Chen, MP (Nee Soon Central) were building `little kingdoms` to serve their own self-interests;

(j) Mr Tan Peng Kuan, former Potong Pasir Town Councillor, whom you implied was too busy to attend council meetings when in fact he had attended almost all of the meetings since his appointment in December 1991 and your bargaining with Mr Tan and Dr Chee that if they crossed over to `your` side, you would step down to stand with them in a GRC;

(k) the PPTC only employing one party member when in fact there are two and not mentioning the fact that the PPTC was the first to employ party members;

(l) your claim that the PPTC annual turnover is much less that $2 million when in fact the PPTC`s turnover itself is well over that amount;

(m) the CEC blocking you on `many issues`;

(n) Mr Ling How Doong not allowing the CEC to debate on the motion to censure Dr Chee when in fact the CEC did discuss the issue even though no CEC member seconded your motion;

(2) your opening of a bank account in your own name and that of another and paid in party funds collected from an SDP arranged dinner into that account which was in breach of the party constitution;

(3) your failure to contribute 10% of your MP`s allowance to the party despite the fact that you had signed a pledge to do so during the 1984, 1988 and 1991 general elections;

After hearing your explanation and all other evidence, the committee will decide on the course of

...