Authors: Subhas Anandan
Justice Lai shook his head. “You know I can’t do that, Lord Hooson. I can’t allow you to put the carriage before the horse. I’ve not even given my decision. It has to wait.”
Before Lord Hooson left Singapore, he provided me with a draft of some of the questions of public interest that we could raise if the judgment went against us.
A week or two later, Justice Lai delivered his judgment in which he dismissed our appeal against conviction. But what he did with the appeal against sentence was very unusual. He converted the three months’ imprisonment to one month’s imprisonment and imposed a fine of $10,000 against each of the two accused, JBJ and Wong Hong Toy. On my application, Justice Lai allowed them bail for one day to file the questions of public interest.
After the sentence was passed, I returned to the Subordinate Courts library to research some facts. In my discussions with some members of the Bar in the Bar Room and upon my research, I learnt that Justice Lai could not impose a sentence of $10,000 because at the time when JBJ was found guilty and sentenced in the Subordinate Courts, Errol Foenander had the power only to impose a maximum fine of $5,000 if he wanted to. The power to impose $10,000 only came about after JBJ’s case ended. So, Justice Lai was wrong to set the fine at $10,000. I immediately rushed to JBJ’s office, which was at the old Colombo Court building near the High Court, to discuss the matter with him.
I said to JBJ, “I believe Lai Kew Chai was wrong in imposing his $10,000 fine as he didn’t have the authority.”
JBJ looked at me and remarked, “My God, you’re right! What do you think we should do?”
“There are two schools of thought, Ben,” I replied. “Some of my friends tell me that we should file this question of public interest on whether he had the jurisdiction to impose the fine of $10,000 only tomorrow morning, just before our hearing commences. But this means we aren’t giving him a chance to alter his sentence because he would have risen for the day. The law states that if he’s risen for the day, he cannot alter his sentence. If we do this, we won’t give him a chance to rectify his mistake and he will be caught flat-footed the next day.”
“What is the other school of thought? What are your thoughts?” JBJ asked impatiently.
“Ben, to me, if he has passed his sentence, he has already risen for the day. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 2 o’clock, 3 o’clock or 5 o’clock. That’s my interpretation of risen for the day. But most importantly, I think we should file it today simply because we are both officers of the court and if we have discovered an error made by the judge, we should not capitalise on the error. We should file it straight away. If he wants to alter it, that’s his problem but we should object to his alteration. It’s not fair or legal. I think we should file it today. That’s my opinion.”
JBJ looked at me intently for the longest moment. “You know something, my friend, you are absolutely right. We will file it now.”
I gained a lot of respect for the man when he agreed with me even though the move may have been detrimental to him. We immediately called in his secretary, Wendy, to type out another question, basically asking whether the Appellate Court had the right to exceed the jurisdiction of the lower court in imposing a sentence, or something to the effect which indirectly stated that Justice Lai had exceeded his right. We filed it at about 3.00 pm with copies sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. I thought that was the end of the matter for the day but Low Wee Ping, the registrar, was frantically looking for me about an hour later. He left word at my office to return his call urgently.
I learnt that the registrar was looking for me urgently only at about 5.00 pm. I returned his call and his first question was to find out where I was. I said I was in the Bar Room of the High Court having a cup of coffee. Quite assertively he told me to stay right where I was. The next thing I knew, Low was next to me. He said, “I want you to appear before Justice Lai Kew Chai now.”
I was confused. “Whatever for?”
“It has something to do with what you’ve filed and he would like to see you now. So please finish your coffee and go immediately.”
“Look, I don’t even have my jacket here with me,” I said, feeling a bit flustered.
He insisted. “Never mind that, just borrow somebody’s jacket now and go. Can you get your client, Jeyaretnam, to come along as well?”
I told him that I didn’t know where JBJ was as I knew that he had left his office earlier. The registrar was more anxious that I should appear before Justice Lai immediately. He escorted me to Justice Lai’s chambers. Tan Teow Yeow and DPP Loke were already seated outside. As soon as I arrived, Justice Lai’s personal assistant, Eugene, invited all parties into the chambers.
Justice Lai said to me, “Subhas, I’m so glad that you have filed this latest question of public interest. I have checked it and I realised that I’ve made a mistake. I shouldn’t have imposed a fine of $10,000. I am altering it to $5,000 instead.”
I said to him, “I do not know whether Your Honour could do it now especially after you’ve risen for the day. The accused is not even here, you know. Can you just do it like that?”
“Well you’re here and that’s more than enough,” he said with conviction. “I do not know if you want to go on with the argument with the question of public interest now that I’ve rectified it.”
I said I was unable to reply until I took my client’s instructions. I told him that I would probably be arguing it anyway. Justice Lai said, “I’ll leave it to you.” He walked out of the room.
I managed to contact JBJ later that evening and update him on what had just transpired with Justice Lai. He just said: “Never mind.”
We went back to court the next morning and I argued the alteration from $10,000 to $5,000. I told Justice Lai that firstly, he was wrong to impose the $10,000 fine and secondly, he made it worse by altering the sentence after he had risen for the day in the absence of the accused person and without giving sufficient notice. I raised all the points that had to be raised and there was an exchange of words and arguments between us. Justice Lai took it very well. He was always a very friendly judge and I had a lot of time for him. Finally, he dismissed all the questions of public interest and said that JBJ had to go to jail. JBJ promptly asked permission for him to give a press statement before being taken to the prison. Justice Lai apologised and said that he was not able to allow him to give a press statement in his court. Before he was escorted away to prison, he instructed me to call for a press conference on his behalf. I told the reporters who had gathered around that I would be holding a press conference on behalf of my client in his office at 2.30 pm. JBJ was taken to prison at around noon. I went for lunch.
When the press conference started, I told everyone present that it had been called under the instructions of my client, JBJ, and that what I was going to say were not my words but the words of my client as instructed. JBJ wanted me to tell the people of Singapore, and specifically the people of Anson constituency, not to worry and that he would return. I think he said, “Don’t worry, I shall return” or words to that effect. I kept emphasising to the press that the words were JBJ’s and not mine. Of course, the newspapers were full of news about JBJ the next day and reported what I had said.
The next thing I knew, the Attorney-General Tan Boon Teik had reported me to the Law Society for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, that is, for calling the press conference and saying what I had said. I was a bit shocked but I thought it was a knee-jerk reaction from the Attorney-General. Anyway, I went before the Inquiry Committee comprising District Judge Chandra Mohan, a lawyer called Lee Han Yang and two other members. Out of a number of complaints, they thought that there were two or three concerning my calling for a press conference that had to be decided by the Disciplinary Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee was chaired by retired Justice Choor Singh with lawyer Woo Tchi Chiu and two others as members. As soon as I appeared before the committee, I told Justice Singh that I objected to Woo Tchi Chiu sitting as a member of the panel as it was a well-known fact that he was a very close friend of the Attorney-General.
Justice Singh said, “So you think that Woo Tchi Chiu will be able to influence all of us and get the verdict against you? Is that what you think?”
I replied, “No, that’s not what I think. In my mind, I would be starting with one vote down and so I’m objecting.”
Justice Singh then said, “What if I overruled your objection? Do you know that if I overrule your objection, you’ll have to write to the Chief Justice and he may not agree with your views? So what are you going to do?”
“Well, Mr Chairman, I’m prepared to write to the Chief Justice, putting my objection forward, if you are going to overrule my objection,” I replied. “I will tell the Chief Justice that Woo Tchi Chiu should be removed from the Disciplinary Committee Panel. If the Chief Justice decides not to listen to me, I’ll go further. This matter will not rest here.”
Justice Singh glared at me and I glared back at him. I was told to leave the room and return in 15 minutes. On my return, I was told that Woo Tchi Chiu had disqualified himself. Replacing him was T P B Menon, a former Law Society president. I said that I had no objection to him.
In the meantime, before my inquiry, I had written to John Mortimer, Lord Emlyn Hooson and another QC, Martin Thomas, informing them about the Attorney-General’s complaint against me. I told them I did not know what the motivation behind it was and that it was not fair. They all responded saying that, to them, I had done nothing wrong. In fact, if I had not adhered to my client’s instructions, I could have faced disciplinary proceedings for disobeying his instructions. They advised me not to worry and said that if I needed their help, they would come at their own expense to defend me. I was very touched by their gestures of goodwill. I thanked them for their offers but assured them that I should be able to handle the matter myself.
When I appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, I had with me as my defence counsel, Francis Seow, who was the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore and an ex-president of the Law Society. Anthony Godwin appeared for the Law Society.
Anthony Godwin told Justice Singh, “Mr Chairman, my clients, the Law Society, has instructed me not to offer any evidence against the defendant, Mr Subhas Anandan.”
There was absolute silence. Justice Singh looked shocked. “What are you saying?”
Godwin reiterated: “The Law Society does not want to proceed or produce any evidence. In other words, they do not support these charges against the defendant.”
Justice Singh said, “Maybe he’s not guilty of this particular clause but look at the Legal Profession Act. There are so many offences. Doesn’t the Law Society feel that some of his misconduct could fit into some of these offences?”
Choor Singh was dying to get me charged under some of those sections but Godwin stood up and said, “Mr Chairman, the Law Society has taken advice from the highest authority in this particular case and they are of the view that Mr Anandan has not committed any offence at all.”
Choor Singh replied, “Well, in that case I can do nothing.”
Francis Seow retorted: “Of course you can do something, Mr Chairman. You can write to the Attorney-General Tan Boon Teik and tell him how stupid his allegations are. There is no basis for all these things.” Francis Seow continued rattling on, condemning the Attorney-General.
Choor Singh interjected, “I don’t write to anyone except the Chief Justice.”
Francis Seow said, “Well you said you could do nothing and I was merely suggesting that you could do something if you wanted to.”
I smiled to myself at the exchange of words and walked out of the hearing with Francis Seow.
In the Bar Room, I met Jeffrey Chan, a state counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers. I told him: “Jeffrey, tell your boss Tan Boon Teik that since the Disciplinary Committee has thrown out my case because of the Law Society’s position, he now has the option to take the complaint against me all by himself to the High Court. Tell him I am looking forward to it.”
Jeffrey Chan did not respond. The Attorney-General never appealed because I think deep inside he knew that the allegation he made against me was unfounded.
We thought that the saga would end there but it did not. Based on JBJ’s conviction, the Law Society took disciplinary action against him and the court of three judges struck him off. The law is such that they can do that if you’re convicted. At that time, Singapore had not abolished the Privy Council, and thank God for that. JBJ appealed to the Privy Council and Martin Thomas, who was engaged to be his counsel, invited me to assist him. As the Worker’s Party had no money to pay for my services and was unable to fly me to London for the purpose, I did not go. Besides, I was getting a little tired of the whole exercise.
At the hearing of the Privy Council, the Lords informed Goh Joon Seng, who appeared for the Law Society at the time and who subsequently went on to become a High Court judge, that they were looking into the legality of JBJ’s conviction because the striking off of JBJ was based on his conviction. They found that the conviction was unreasonable and could not be sustained. The Privy Council gave a beautiful judgment. They criticised Errol Foenander, the Court of Appeal, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, Justice Lai Kew Chai and some others who made certain orders. The whole judgment vindicated JBJ and I was very happy for that decision because I had received hell from the Chief Justice. The arguments that I had put forward were dismissed by him with total disregard. The same arguments, however, were accepted by the Privy Council as reasonable arguments. In some ways, I found that I was vindicated too.
JBJ was reinstated as a member of the Bar. But even though the Privy Council decided his conviction was bad in law, he was not given a pardon by the government and he remained disqualified as a member of parliament. Subsequently, he got sued again for defamation and became a bankrupt. He could not take part in elections and only managed to discharge himself as a bankrupt in 2008. He went back to practice and started a new political party called the Reform Party. He said he would stand in the next general election as a candidate. I wish him luck.