PRO SE LITIGATION AND A SINGAPOREAN'S MISSION TO SEEK JUSTICE

"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"
(unknown)

If you hold a religious view and engage in online social chatter with a young smart alec liberal endowed with a  university education, chances are at some point, you will be called "flat Earther" or have "sky daddy' thrown at you. Raymond Ng is one such. I do not know RN personally but we have crossed swords in Facebook. He has never applied "sky daddy" on me, but "flat Earther " often. I find him brash, irascible, and has a super ego. On the positive side he is intelligent, and brave as to a willingness to discuss real issues. A natural Trump-hater, which seems to me is a birth defect of most liberals. Funny thing is if you engage on the opposite side of an issue with RN, he comes across exactly like Trump - direct, tempestuous, no-holds barred.

RN has trashed me on some of my views, as I of his. There is no love-lost because it is simply a battle ground of ideas. I do hate it when RN goes ad hominem and counterfactual in his arguments, which was often. But I have no problems, no matter how hard-hitting he came out, on the ideas and views of the issues discussed, however much I disagree with his position. I actually find some kindred spirit in our riposte on the intellectual side of an issue, which generally do not happen often at FB. I suspect there is some mutual respect for original thoughts since RN returns to my posts despite some fiery exchanges.

That prologue is necessary so readers understand where I stand with Raymond as I pen this blog on something that he is working on. RN's degree is in Computer Science and his work has involved IT and systems. He has in recent times learnt how to use AI in preparation of legal pleadings, self-taught himself on court procedures, has the gumption to take the road to pro se litigation and bring civil suits against some people who allegedly defamed him. AI has empowered him to do pro se litigation and unshackled him from the constraints of legal fees. He is on a zealous mission to exact justice for the pain he suffered and warned his many detractors of impending legal actions coming.

I have seen several posts on FB of allegations of a financial scam by RN. It is not my purpose nor interest to dwell on the veracity of these allegations. The use of AI and RN's pursuit of pro se litigation is what I am interested in. RN had agreed to sit down with me, not for a formal interview as I am not a qualified reporter, but a chat over coffee, to help me understand his legal pursuits.

Before I get to the chat, a primer on pro se litigation. This is a term for someone who represents himself in a legal case. The adage "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln but the origin is not clear.

Reasons why lawyers should not represent themselves include : Lost of objectivity due to emotional involvement, personal bias clouds the legal objective issues, third parties are better at negotiating on one's behalf, decision making may be impaired as personal stakes get confused with best objective strategy, professional judgement is compromised by personal interests, additional stress, conflict of interest of two personas, etc. Perhaps a better way to put it is a lawyer who represents himself is amongst the fish in the tank, he cannot see the water he is swimming in.

Here we have RN, a non-lawyer, representing himself. In addition to the problems a self-representing lawyer faces, as a non-lawyer, RN has to navigate the minefield of Court Procedures which includes the drafting of pleadings, submission of evidence;  the intricacies of the burden of proof as a plaintiff; countering the defense arguments which in defamation is usually built on the alleged acts, publication, or speech, as truth, fair comment, and privilege, which requires a thorough understanding of legal doctrines and precedents.

Despite the legal difficulties and risks, there are people who are prepared to self-represent in four situations - they think they can do better than a lawyer in the case, legal cost considerations, where no lawyer is prepared to take up their case, and lastly in certain courts such as family courts, employer-employee disputes, and small claims tribunal, where self-representation is common. I have had an experience of self-representation as a plaintiff in the Small Claims Tribunal where I came off pretty well. I knew the small claims court is in reality a mediation process, so I understood the psychology of give and take and how to present myself in the eyes of the mediator. The defence also self-represented. She was half and hour late, totally unprepared, and her first mistake was a patronising approach to the mediator seeing him of the same racial stock and she being a fairly good looker. The mediator put her in her place immediately. I was in the good grace of the mediator as I had humbly acceded to his request to wait for 30 minutes and my evidence was well documented.

Most jurisdictions allow self-representation in both civil and criminal cases because of the fundamental belief every man has a right to defend himself. Singapore is no exception. In Singapore we call someone who self-represents a Litigant-In-Person (LIP). A corporate body may elect a director or employee to represent them with the leave of the court. Non-lawyers cannot represent someone else, but in some cases are allowed to attend to give support and advice litigants.

Singapore judiciary has made efforts to support LIPs by providing resources and guidance to help them navigate the legal system. Guides, information booklets, and online resources that explain court procedures and legal concepts in simple terms are readily available to LIPs. Certain court processes have been simplified to make them more accessible to LIPs, eg Small Claims Tribunal is a very informal setting. Avenues for legal aid and pro bono services are available for those who cannot afford a lawyer. The Community Justice Centre, a non-profit organization, provides support to LIPs. It offers free legal clinics, practical assistance with court procedures, and emotional support to help individuals manage their cases. Online platforms and digital resources provide easy access to legal information and allow individuals to file documents and manage their cases electronically.

It's been said judges are mindful of the challenges faced by LIPs and may exercise discretion and allow more leniency in the presentation of evidence. But it is fair dinkum that in privacy, the courts and lawyers in a pro se litigation must surely hold some disdain because the inexperience of an LIP most certainly will cause more time spent in the courts.

I have not been able to locate any study of pro se litigation in Singapore to have an idea of the success rates. Here are a few cases that I managed to dig up :

Ms. Xu Yan v. SPH Magazines Pte Ltd. (2019):
SPH published an article in Her World magazine which Xu Yan claimed was defamatory and had injured her reputation. She sued and won when the High Court ruled in her favour. This is an illustration of the importance of accurate and fair reporting by media.

Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General (2012):
Tan was charged under Section 377A of the Penal Code for consensual sex between adult men. He argued Articles 9 and 12 of the Singapore Constitution guarantee his rights to equality before the law and personal liberty. 377A violated his rights. His charge was eventually reduced to a lesser offense and he pleaded guilty. The 377A charge thus became moot. But the High Court dismissed Tan's application, stating that he lacked standing to bring the constitutional challenge because his charge had been reduced. However, Tan appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that Tan Eng Hong did have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A, as the law had directly affected him by leading to his initial arrest and charge. What Tan won was he had standing to challenge the constitutionality of 377A. It was a procedural victory.

This ruling did not result in Section 377A being struck down. It paved the way for subsequent legal challenges to the law and is the basis for legal battles regarding the constitutionality of Section 377A in Singapore.

Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General: (2013)
Vellama filed a constitutional challenge regarding the timing of by-elections in Singapore. Her pleading was when a parliamentary seat is vacated, a by-election must be held by a certain time and not at the unfettered discretion of Prime Minister.

The High Court dismissed her application. She appealed. The Appellate Court ruled that the Prime Minister has discretion on the timing of by-elections, but this discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in good faith, considering the public interest. The court made no attempt to decide on a timeframe for a by-election, leaving the matter to the Prime Minister.

It was a partial victory for the LIP.

Dr. Ting Choon Meng v. Mindef (2016):
Ting had designed a mobile medical station known as the Station With Immediate First-aid Treatment (SWIFT) for the Ministry of Defence. SWIFT was a rapid-deployment medical station intended for use in military operations and disaster relief scenarios. It is designed to be easily transportable and quickly set up to provide immediate medical treatment in the field. Although Mindef liked the prototype, the contract was awarded to a third party and it became a legal dispute. Ting held the patent but in the end, he did not pursue the case as he could not challenge the financial might of Mindef.

In the course of the dispute, Mindef had made a statement that Ting alleged it suggested his patent was invalid and that he was not the original inventor. Ting sued but lost. The court ruled the statements made by Mindef were not defamatory and were based on factual and legal grounds. Additionally, the court noted that Mindef's comments were made in the context of defending itself in ongoing patent litigation, which provided a legitimate basis for its statements. Statements made in the context of legal proceedings are generally upheld to ensure that participants can speak freely without fear of litigation.

Suing a man on the street for defamation is one thing. Suing a public body is an entirely different matter. The case highlighted the complexities of defamation law, particularly in the context of public bodies defending their actions and statements in legal disputes. There are matters the court will take into consideration which includes the protection of qualified privilege, un-inhibited open and honest discourse is necessary for public oversight and accountability. 

I hope Raymond pays attention here as I believe he has brought a case against Health Science Authority and Raffles Girl School.

A coffee chat:

Raymond was gracious enough to buy me coffee and spent several hours with me. I want to make it clear again that my purpose was to hear directly from him how he employed AI to assist him in his legal pursuits. It was not an opportunity for him to sell me his virtues and his innocence in some allegations arising from a failed coffee vending business called Vendshare. Credit to him that he made no attempt to persuade me his innocence. In fact he volunteered that he was under police investigation for fraud regarding Venshare franchise scheme three years ago. He said police has not taken any action, but he has no idea if the case is still active or closed. 

A bit on the Vendshare story as the legal pursuits originated from it. About 3 years back RN promoted a scheme where franchisees bid for lots in particular coffee vending machines at particular locations. The business model was franchisees put up a franchise fee and operate and can earn a share of the profits, if any. The business failed, killed by the pandemic. Bad blood ensued and franchisees claimed the whole thing was a scam and lodged police reports. 

Rice Media, a local online news outfit, carried an article on Vendshare that RN considered damaging. Quite a number of people shared the article. Under the Defamation Act and Penal Code, anyone sharing a libelous article can be guilty of defamation and criminal defamation in the same way as the original author. RN sued Rice Media but the case was stood down due to the death of a key witness. There were several people who shared the article and engaged in online running feuds and attacked RN. I have seen some of these. I make no comment as to the legal standing of any party. 

RN pointed out the lessons learnt in the case against Rice Media was his lawyer made too many pleadings. He felt in a defamation suit he should just focus on the nexus of the case and ignore peripheral issues. This is now his approach. As to the AI he basically confirmed what I had thought it was all about. AI helps him to analyse each particular aspect of a case and helps to formulate how it should be pleaded. RN mentioned something about monetising his AI capability in these defamation cases. I am not too sure of the details. It vaguely seems to offer assistance to those willing to take the same LIP route and RN's methodologies can offer justice and more social equality to those who want to seek redress but cannot shoulder heavy lawyering costs.

Raymond's wife Iris, whom I featured in a July blog "RGS Exam Question On Ethics Of Doing Harm Is Not So Easy" could not find reconciliation with her alma mater Raffles Girls School regarding an exam question she claimed defamed her. Yesterday she served pre-action letter to the principal. RN will be assisting Iris to pursue a pro se litigation.

Raymond is also currently pursuing a case against Health Science Authority. This is a case for judicial review. This case involves a breach of Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines as well as the Health Products Act where HSA is the regulatory enforcement agency. A certain big pharma had ran promo advertisements which featured certain celebrities endorsing the medical product. In Singapore, the rules on advertisements for medical products are very strict. No celebrities, including actors, sports stars, or other public figures, can be used as endorsers. This is to prevent the public from being unduly influenced by the fame or authority of such individuals when making decisions about medical products or services. 

On Vendshare-related cases, RN has filed a suit against someone and is working on building another case. I had the impression several more cases may be on the way.

RN is also in the process of serving a legal papers on the ex-nominated MP Calvin Cheng. This is also a libel case. I have no details. I read recently in social media of a clown show played out at the condo where Cheng resides as he 'courageously' but naively refused to receive the service of legal papers. To Lee & Lee he went. Folks, it's going to be a David vs Goliath show. As of writing, the originating claim and statement of claim (previously called writ of summons) have been served..  

In the Raffles Girls' School case, Iris is within her rights to seek redress if she feels government creep into a private individual's space needs to be addressed. I respect the courage.

The HSA case is an open and shut case. It would be interesting to see how the agency wriggles its way out. Raymond is doing national service as it is apparent no less than three official watchdogs have been sleeping on the job. The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore operates under CASE (Consumer Association of Singapore) and is responsible for promoting ethical advertising practices in Singapore. IMDA (Infocomm Media Development Authority) is primarily focused on media content regulation, but also has a role in overseeing advertising in the media, particularly in terms of content that is broadcast on television and radio. The HSA regulates advertisements relating to health products to ensure no false or misleading claims and comply with the Health Products Act. So a big hoo-ah to Raymond for sticking his neck out.

After more than 4 hours over coffee with Raymond, I can add a bit more character observation. The self-confidence is over-bearing and could have been the human relation part that generated the bad blood in the Vendshare venture. The man is very direct and one can even appreciate him for his frank views and steadfast objectivity in his arguments. If I were to measure him, I would say there's too much science and too little on humanities. There is a high level of ethical egoism, which is where a person's interest is exclusively in things that have value for them, and they disregard anything without personal benefit. What shone clearly is Raymond has what is known as efficacy-bound interest which describes a person's interest is bound by their belief in their ability to effect change. If I am not in a position to change this and that, why bother. His approach on most matters is basically legalism, that is, examining every issue solely from a legal perspective, disregarding moral, ethical, or other considerations.  Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that holds that the validity of a law is not connected to its morality. He is without doubt a legal positivist, one who believes that law is valid if it is created according to proper procedures and authority, regardless of whether it is just or ethical. My bottom line view of Raymond is a positivist or legalist, someone whose outlook on issues is based on legality as the sole criterion for judgment.

From my perspective, I get a sense of an unstoppable force once RN has made up his mind. He is on a trajectory to hit an immoveable force in the RGS and HSA cases. My prayers are out for him, not just because I am usually a sucker for the underdog, but I honestly feel the two cases are for the plaintiffs to loose. It would be a good day for pro se litigation when he wins.

 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.