FEMALE TRAINER’S RESIGNATION
One section of the defamatory letter referred to the resignation of a female chess trainer, Ms Anjela Khegay.
The letter alleged that Ms Khegay resigned from SCF on Aug 31, 2015 due to an “incident”, involving sexual misconduct of a verbal nature, at the federation’s Bishan office the day before. Ms Khegay subsequently filed a police report.
The letter further stated that Mr Nisban was one of two council members implicated in the incident, and that the president Mr Lau decided to withhold a report from other council members “despite the gravity of the matter”.
The reality was that Mr Nisban was in the room when the other council member who was implicated, Mr Tony Tan Teck Leng, made a remark to Ms Khegay which she found insulting.
On Jan 22, 2016, Mr Nisban’s lawyers sent a letter of demand to the 51 signatories, informing them that the statements in the letter were untrue and asking if they would dissociate from the statements.
Some subsequently withdrew their support. Mr Nisban sued the remaining for libel but 18 of them settled the matter, leaving the 21 defendants.
Not all 51 people who signed the requisition request were shown or had read the letter. Several claimed that they were only shown the signature sheet.
“SAME BRUSH OF SHAME”
In her judgment, District Judge Tan found that naming Mr Nisban in the letter “had the effect of tarnishing both council members with the same brush of shame”, even though Mr Nisban played a different role in the incident.
She ruled that a SCF member reading the letter would take it to mean that Mr Nisban was one of two council members accused by Ms Khegay of sexual misconduct; that the misconduct was serious enough to cause her to resign and lodge a police report; and that court proceedings could be pursued against them.
Most of the defendants argued that the word “implicated” in the letter merely meant “being involved”, but the judge said it was clearly meant to convey being involved in something bad or wrong.
“It cannot be argued that a statement to the effect that the plaintiff was accused of sexual misconduct and subject to police investigation would not lower the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of the SCF, or even the society at large,” District Judge Tan added.
Ms Khegay was also well-known in the SCF community, being a woman international master – the second-highest title in the chess world that is exclusive to women.
SCF members would be concerned about her sudden resignation, especially “chess parents” whose children she was training, said the judge.
The judge further noted that Mr Leong’s “unprecedented defeat” in the 2015 election was a shock to him, with “sufficient damning written evidence” that revealed his animosity towards his successor Mr Lau.
When it was suggested during the trial that the extraordinary general meeting that the letter called for was an act of revenge, Mr Leong did not deny it could be construed as such, said District Judge Tan.
She reiterated that Ms Khegay did not allege anything against Mr Nisban in her police report.
“In her resignation letter addressed to the SCF President, she had complained of the insulting and disturbing remark made to her by Tony Tan which she found to be totally unacceptable and inappropriate for any female,” the judge noted.
ISSUE OF MALICE
Mr Nisban also claimed the defendants had been motivated by political machinations and ill will as part of a plan to push through a vote of no-confidence in the SCF’s new leadership.
He also said there was a “hostile environment” within the executive council due to differences between two camps – Mr Leong and his supporters on one side, and on the other the likes of Mr Lau and Mr Nisban.
One defendant, Mr Kenneth Tan Yeow Hiang, showed his “complete indifference and reckless disregard” about the truth of the defamatory statements, said the judge.
He was a former SCF president as well as an ex-brigade commander in the Singapore Armed Forces. He also served as assistant managing director of the Economic Development Board, group managing director of UOB bank as well as director and chief of staff of Citibank.
The District Judge ruled that Mr Kenneth Tan, having failed to convince Mr Lau to voluntarily step down, signed the letter to support Mr Leong’s bid to oust Mr Lau and the executive council.
“His attitude in simply endorsing the requisition letter wholesale which he believed was prepared by Leong, or for which Leong was mainly responsible, without proper verification of the sexual misconduct allegations is evidence of malice,” she said.
‘COMBATIVE ATTITUDES’ DURING TRIAL
In determining the amount of damages to award Mr Nisban, the judge accepted his argument that the sexual misconduct accusations were particularly grave because they called his character and decency into question.
His wife and sons also “had to bear the shame and embarrassment” of being linked to the allegations, especially since Ms Khegay coached his son, said District Judge Tan.
While Mr Nisban was not a public leader or well-known figure in Singapore, he was well-known within the SCF community and had a reputation to protect.
As for aggravated damages, the judge said this was clearly warranted due to the defendants’ conduct during the trial. They also raised defences that were reckless or bound to fail.
“The trial also revealed the combative attitudes, as well as the disdain and contempt displayed by a number of the defendants towards the plaintiff,” she added.
For example, Mr Alphonsus Chia, former vice-president of Singapore Airlines and ex-CEO of defunct carrier SilkAir, insisted that Mr Nisban “cooked up” the accusation in the letter. He also challenged Mr Nisban to “bring it on”.
The defendant Mr Kenneth Tan also openly declared that Mr Nisban was a “less than straight” person, added District Judge Tan.
She ordered that all parties file submissions on the issue of costs.
The trial spanned 22 days and was spread across February 2021 to October 2022. Mr Nisban was represented by Mr Lau Kok Keng, Mr Daniel Quek and Ms Edina Lim from law firm Rajah & Tann Singapore.