Tan Cheng Bock need not pay S$30,000 legal cost to govt

And he is asking Singaporeans to confront their MPs personally with difficult questions.

Belmont Lay | September 26, 2017, 11:01 PM

Singaporeans, ex-presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock has a tiny request to ask of all of you.

He wants you to confront your constituency's member of parliament and ask some hard questions the next time you meet him or her face-to-face.

These difficult questions were raised in a Facebook post by Tan on Sept. 26, 2017.

They pertain to the recent non-existent Presidential Election 2017 and the demand to know how did all the events leading up to it come to pass without having important questions about it addressed.

These questions include:

• Why did the government tell parliament they took the Attorney General's advice if the AG's advice was irrelevant?

• Why was Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim invited to go to court to have her question about the presidential election answered if it was, all along, a policy decision?

• Why weren't the reasons for policy decisions explained in parliament then?

No need to pay legal costs

Tan said Singaporeans should know answers to these queries, because MPs are accountable to Singaporeans at the end of the day -- given that a majority of them are from the ruling government's party.

Moreover, these questions have not been resolved despite a new president inaugurated on Sept. 14, 2017 in the form of Madam Halimah Yacob.

Besides laying out his queries in the post, Tan also announced that he does not have to pay S$30,000 to the government for the legal costs incurred for his court challenge on the presidential election reserved for Malay candidates.

Tan said his lawyers vigorously resisted and argued for a “public interest cost order” instead, where the court can spare an unsuccessful plaintiff, who has filed a legitimate complaint, from paying costs to a government defendant in a case of general importance and public interest.

[related_story]

Here is Tan Cheng Bock's Facebook post in full:

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO KNOW - FINAL UPDATE ON COURT CASE

My case has finally concluded with no legal costs payable to the Government. At first, the Government wanted the Court to order $30,000 costs against me. But my lawyers vigorously resisted and argued for a “public interest cost order” instead. After reading our submissions, the Government changed their mind and consented to “no order as to costs”.

What is a “public interest costs order”? In exceptional cases, the Court can spare an unsuccessful plaintiff, who has filed a legitimate complaint, from paying costs to a government defendant in a case of general importance and public interest.

When my legal action started in April 2017, many cautioned “Don’t waste money. You will surely lose and pay the Government thousands of dollars in legal fees.” However, the Government’s dismissive attitude towards genuine answer-seekers like myself, and MP Sylvia Lim in Parliament in Nov 2016 and Feb 2017 was simply unsatisfactory. Win or lose, I was determined the Government should answer our questions.

6 months have passed. My legal team presented serious arguments, and ran our case responsibly without mud-slinging. Now Singaporeans know the issues better. Despite not succeeding, my application has secured some answers.

We heard the AG tell the Court: “PM never said that the AG advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the AG advised (that) what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate” and the AG never advised the Government that President Wee was the 1st Elected President. The start of the count was purely a policy decision, which the Court cannot review. AG’s advice to the PM was ultimately irrelevant.

Yet other questions remain unanswered by the Government. For instance, why did the Government tell Parliament they took AG’s advice if AG’s advice was irrelevant? Why invite MP Sylvia Lim to go to Court if it was, all along, a policy decision? Shouldn’t reasons for policy decisions be explained in Parliament ?

These questions ought to be answered, even though this case has ended. MP Sylvia Lim intends to take it up in Parliament. Let’s hope she gets the chance to do so. Meanwhile, if you meet your PAP MP, please ask them too. As the electorate, they are accountable to you.

This matter is still of general importance and public interest, and we must always exercise our right to seek answers from the Government.