Former political detainee Dr. Lim Hock Siew, who was detained for close to twenty years, has sued the editor, publisher and printer of “1959-2009: Chronicle of Singapore - Fifty Years of Headline News” for defamation. He has requested for compensation from the respondents and demanded that they desist from repeating false information relating to him.
1 comment:
Lim Hock Siew sues “Chronicle of Singapore” editor and related parties for defamation
Zheng Jingyu, Lianhe Zaobao
17 February 2011
SLW commissioned a translation to give the legal community a view of legal reports from different Singapore news outlets.
Former political detainee Dr. Lim Hock Siew, who was detained for close to twenty years, has sued the editor, publisher and printer of “1959-2009: Chronicle of Singapore - Fifty Years of Headline News” for defamation. He has requested for compensation from the respondents and demanded that they desist from repeating false information relating to him.
Dr. Lim Hock Siew, 80, lodged a lawsuit last week through his lawyer R. Joethy, alleging that the publication “1959-2009: Chronicle of Singapore - Fifty Years of Headline News” contains false information relating to him. He is suing the book editor Peter Lim, 73, the publisher Editions Didier Millet and the printer Tien Wah Press for defamation
Dr. Lim has also included the National Library Board as a respondent, as it is listed as the co-publisher of the book.
Dr. Lim had been a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Barisan Socialis after leaving the People’s Action Party in the early years. He was detained by the government in February 1963 under the Internal Security Act and was under detention for close to 20 years.
According to the originating document, Dr. Lim alleges that the information relating to him contained in an article printed on page 77 (“Lim Chin Siong hurt in prison fight”) is false and its publication has led to grievous injury to his reputation, resulting in harm and causing him distress and embarrassment.
Dr. Lim Hock Siew and Lim Chin Siong were good friends. The latter had been a PAP legislator before subsequently leading the Barisan Socialis.
Dr. Lim stated that he had initiated legal proceedings against the news media in 1966 concerning the aforementioned falsehoods and had been awarded $7,000 in compensation.
The Chronicle records 2,270 important and significant news events over the past fifty years from the point of view of a journalist, and is based on news reports. The editor, Peter Lim, was formerly the editor-in-chief of The Straits Times. The book was published in 2009 and reprinted last year.
Dr. Lim had sent legal letters to the four respondents in December last year demanding that they immediately and unreservedly remove the false information concerning him and publish a formal written apology according to his request, in addition to paying damages and his legal fees.
Compensation may be between $60,000 and $250,000
Court documents reveal that the lawyer for Editions Didier Millet had apologised in the response to Dr. Lim’s lawyer last month but failed to meet the demands made by Dr. Lim. None of the other three respondents had offered their apologies or provided compensation to date.
Dr. Lim has therefore requested the district court to order that they pay compensation and aggravated damages. He did not provide a precise sum but compensation amounts for cases lodged at the district court can range from $60,000 to $250,000. In addition, he has applied for an injunction barring the respondents from repeating the false information contained in the publication.
The respondents now have eight days to respond to the lawsuit and an additional 14 days after that to lodge their defence.
When asked whether they will be lodging a defence, the general manager of Editions Didier Millet declined to comment to the media. Peter Lim said that he cannot comment publicly on the matter as judicial proceedings have commenced.
Tien Wah Press said that as a printer, its role was merely to print the publication based on the instructions given. In addition, it said it could not comment at this time due to the absence of other materials relating to this case. The National Library Board had not provided a response as at press time.
Post a Comment