Last Push To Obtain Justice – Urgent Appeal For Funds To Get To The Court Of Appeal
8 August 2019
Dear friends,
Dear friends,
Legal Battle with NUS – For the past 14 years, I have fought a
tough battle against the National University of Singapore for the wrongful
denial of my Master’s Degree. In 2012, I sued the university as a last resort.
I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can
be heard in the Court of Appeal.
Two years ago, donations from the public enabled me to pay a
portion of the $11,000 of court hearing fee and send my case to trial instead
of being thrown out by Court. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security
for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal.
To recap, here below is a brief summary of the past 14 years in which I
had fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for
wrongfully denying my MA degree, the sabotage of my PhD programme that I was then enrolled in in 2006, which cost
me loss of career opportunities and loss of income. NUS destroyed my career.
In September 2006,
NUS (National University of Singapore) expelled me from the university after
refusing to confer me my Master of Arts Degree in retaliation for my
whistle-blowing about misconduct by a professor at NUS, and my whistle-blowing
about the subsequent cover-up. As a result of this expulsion by NUS, I had
to leave a PhD course that I had already started in the United
States. This destroyed my chances of pursuing a career in my field of
expertise.
In August 2012, I was
left with no other option except to turn to the courts to sue NUS, after two
different NUS university presidents and the Ministry of Education all failed to
help me despite my desperate appeals for help. If I didn't start the
lawsuit against NUS by August 2012, my case would have been
“time-barred” which means that I would have passed the deadline to take legal
action.
NUS should have properly
admitted its guilt, offered to make amends to me, and punished the wrongdoers.
Instead, NUS spent more than $700,000 of public funds to hire lawyers to fight
me every step of the way and protect the wrongdoers from the punishment they
deserved. NUS fiercely resisted discovery of relevant documents, thereby
dragging out the lawsuit and making it very costly for me. NUS could
afford to use these attrition tactics against me, because NUS can use
public funds (taxpayers’ dollars) to fight me in court. I ran out of money
half-way through this lawsuit and had to resort to borrowing. NUS even tried to
apply to Court to bankrupt me in 2015.
In July 2017, I
went public to raise funds for my legal fees after NUS successfully got the
Court to issue me two ultimatums (Unless Orders) – to pay $11,000 within three
days, failing which my legal case would be thrown out of court. By borrowing
money and crowdfunding, I was able to raise the funds to send the case to
trial.
In August 2017, the
public trial of my case began in the High Court. The trial spanned a total
of nine days from August 2017 to November 2017. I blogged about my 9-day
trial and legal updates here:
In July 2018,
the Court delivered its decision – I lost all my legal claims against NUS. This was despite the High Court
finding that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing against me (see the quotations from
the High Court’s written judgment below).
On 26 July 2019,
the Court delivered its decision on costs – the High Court ordered me to pay $169,748.77
to NUS for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). NUS originally
claimed $698,940.11 in legal costs and disbursements
for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). This means that NUS claims
that it spent at least $698,940.11 paying its lawyers from Drew &
Napier to fight me in Court. Since NUS is a “public body” this money must have
come from the taxpayers’ dollars.
I don’t know whether if NUS will
appeal the cost award, given that the Court has awarded NUS less than a quarter of
what NUS has claimed that it had spent in legal costs. Both sides have until 26
August 2019 to file a “Notice of Appeal.” NUS may also choose to bankrupt me as
NUS has tried once in 2015 to enforce the cost orders made by Court. This is
what NUS does to a student who has refused to allow NUS to cover up misconduct
of one of its faculty members against the student.
Having considered the matter
thoroughly, I have decided to appeal the High Court’s decision on costs, as
well as the High Court's substantive judgment, to the Court of Appeal; but the
problem is that, in Singapore, if you want to appeal to the Court of Appeal,
you have to pay $20,000 for “Security for Costs.” If you can’t
afford to pay the $20,000, then the Court will not allow you to appeal. The
Security for Costs is for the opposing party, which is NUS in my case, and the
Security for Costs is separate from the thousands of dollars of court filing
fees to be paid to the Court.
As far as I know, the
Malaysian Court and the British Courts do not require (or require only minimal
amounts for) this sort of security deposit. However, this is, sadly, the current
position in Singapore.
Now, in August 2019, I am
resorting to crowdfunding again to raise $20,000 Security for Costs which is
for the benefit of NUS, before the Court of Appeal would accept my application
to hear my appeal.
At the present moment, I
have about 2 weeks to raise the $20,000 to appeal the Court’s decisions. I believe
I have an arguable case, in fact a strong case, but I don’t have the sum of $20,000. I need to reach the target sum by 22 August 2019 (and file the Notice of Appeal latest by 26 August 2019).
Appealing to the Court of
Appeal is probably the only way that I can avoid bankruptcy – or, at the very
least, it is certainly the only way that I can possibly avoid a crushing
financial burden in the form of the unfair costs order.
Why do I want to appeal?
Some people have asked me to
give up taking NUS to the courts because they feel that I can never win a
lawsuit against a Singapore public/government institution in Singapore. However,
I will still go ahead with the appeal because I believe I have a strong case
before the Court of Appeal.
The High Court judgment has
already exposed and confirmed wrongdoing by NUS officers.
In the July 2018
written judgment, the High Court actually found NUS to be guilty of wrongdoing
in the main facts of my case. (See the elaboration on this point in the next
section below.) But the High Court
did not find NUS to be guilty of “malice” or “deliberate” acts and, hence, the
High Court did not hold NUS liable to me for expelling me from the university
and destroying my career, despite the overwhelming documentary evidence that
proves that the wrongful actions that NUS took against me were intentional,
deliberate, premediated and carefully planned and executed by numerous
high-ranking NUS officers.
In my case against NUS, NUS
has consistently taken the legal position that I did not complete the
requirements that were necessary for NUS to award me my Master’s degree. This
is a lame excuse and a red herring. The fact is that I had successfully
completed all of the requirements for my graduation and for the award of
my Master’s Degree, including researching and writing a book-length Master’s
thesis, and I had submitted the final version of my thesis to NUS on the
deadline stipulated by NUS. The documentary evidence of letters and internal
emails written by NUS officers, clearly prove that the real reason why
NUS expelled me and denied me the award of my Master's degree, was that I
refused to comply with demands that I drop my complaints about a professor’s
misconduct (my thesis Supervisor), even after NUS sent me a letter that
threatened me with expulsion if I refused to comply with the improper
demands.
On 13 May 2019,
during the court hearing on Costs, the lawyer for NUS, in trying to convince the
High Court judge to order me to pay NUS even more costs, told the judge that
NUS had made an offer to me to award me my Master’s degree in 2017. (Refer to
an extract of the Court Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 below.)
In other words, NUS has
finally (in effect) admitted in Court in 2019 that it had withheld my MA
degree despite the fact that I had already earned the degree in 2006!
Paypal
tljvnus@gmail.com
PayLah!
93884036
Bank
POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
DBS Bank Pte Ltd
12 Marina Boulevard,
DBS Asia Central,
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3,
Singapore 018982
Singapore
Bank swift code:
DBSSSGSG
Branch code:
081
In early 2017, before my case went to public trial, I complained to the Minister of Law regarding NUS, but the Minister of Law just forwarded my complaint to the Ministry of Education, which I had already approached for help in 2011. I dutifully followed up by sending several more emails to the Ministry of Education in early 2017. Despite all of my written reminders, the Ministry of Education just repeatedly lied to me in writing that it would look into my complaint and get back to me, but it never did. So much for asking the government for help. I emphasise this point, because some people who hear about my case still tell me to try asking the government for help.
(A copy of the 11 August 2006 letter referred to in paragraph [233] above is exhibited below.)
I am glad that the High Court has (if nothing else) at least confirmed that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing when NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong imposed upon me the following two conditions as new graduation requirements to get my MA Degree:
Theoretically the right to appeal is a basic legal right
protected by the Singapore Constitution. Supposedly, every Singaporean has an
automatic legal right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. (See, for example, the
decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in IW v IX [2005] SGCA 48 at
[22], which says that an appeal is “a matter of right.” However, in
actual practice, the Court of Appeal will refuse to hear appeals by
Singaporeans who are unable to afford to pay $20,000 for “Security for
Costs.” This is the situation that I’ve found myself in. The Court has
informed me that it has no power to waive this Security requirement, but the
Court has given NUS, the opposing party in my lawsuit the power to
waive this requirement because the Security deposit is for NUS!
 |
Extract of the Court
Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 (“Chia” refers to NUS’ counsel)
|
The High Court judgment
appears to be that what NUS did to me is wrongful but NUS is not legally liable
to me in the eyes of the law. With all due respect to the High Court, this is
absolutely absurd. I will try to ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the
costs order. The actions of NUS are “disgraceful” and deserving of “moral condemnation.”
I filed my Notice of Appeal
to appeal the High Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2018,
which was before the deadline; but, the Court has unjustly denied me my legal
right to appeal, despite the fact that the right to appeal is supposedly a
legal right that belongs to every Singaporean. The Court denied me my
legal right to appeal on the grounds that I was unable to pay the $20,000 for
“Security for Costs” for the appeal. Now that the High Court has issued a
decision on costs, I have another opportunity to be heard by the Court of
Appeal, but first I have to raise the $20,000 for “Security for Costs”
before the deadline.
Your donation will help me
to ask the Court of Appeal to hear my appeal of the High Court's judgment,
amongst other issues including the issue on costs.
Please donate generously to
my crowdfunding appeal, so that my case can be heard in the Court of Appeal.
Thank you.
For those of you who are still
interested in the details of my case after reading this far, you can continue reading the text below, after the donation details. Please donate to my crowdfunding appeal.
Paypal
tljvnus@gmail.com
PayLah!
93884036
Bank
POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
DBS Bank Pte Ltd
12 Marina Boulevard,
DBS Asia Central,
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3,
Singapore 018982
Singapore
Bank swift code:
DBSSSGSG
Branch code:
081
In early 2017, before my case went to public trial, I complained to the Minister of Law regarding NUS, but the Minister of Law just forwarded my complaint to the Ministry of Education, which I had already approached for help in 2011. I dutifully followed up by sending several more emails to the Ministry of Education in early 2017. Despite all of my written reminders, the Ministry of Education just repeatedly lied to me in writing that it would look into my complaint and get back to me, but it never did. So much for asking the government for help. I emphasise this point, because some people who hear about my case still tell me to try asking the government for help.
The High Court’s findings
that NUS was wrong
Here below is the link to
the High Court’s official written judgment for my lawsuit, that was issued on 9
July 2018.
I highlight the following
paragraphs from the High Court’s written judgment at paragraphs
[229], [230], [233] and [234]:
[229] More importantly,
it was wrong of VP Kong [NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong] to impose the first part
of the Acceptance requirement as a condition for awarding the Degree…
[230] In the action, the Plaintiff focussed on the second part
of the Acceptance requirement, ie, to require the Plaintiff to accept the
decision of the COI on the plagiarism issue, as constituting deliberate
conduct. VP Kong [NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong] admitted in
cross-examination that it would not be correct for her to impose such a
condition but she did not accept that she had in fact imposed such a condition
on the Plaintiff. As I have mentioned above, she did impose that condition. I
also conclude that it was wrong of her to do so.
[Emphasis added in bold]
… …
[233] The 11 August 2006 letter had asked the Plaintiff to
confirm that she accepted the “University’s decisions and will therefore, (a)
comply with the uploading requirement as well as (b) cease your correspondence
regarding the contents of your email of 27 November 2005”. In my view, the
letter did require the Plaintiff to cease her correspondence with NUS about the
contents of her 27 November 2005 email. This was clearly stated in the letter.
I am also of the view that the letter suggested that this was a condition she
had to accept in order to obtain the Degree.
[234] Since the Plaintiff was not obliged to accept the COI’s
decision on the plagiarism issue, she was also not obliged to cease
correspondence on the issue. Therefore, I am also of the view that VP Kong [NUS
Vice-Provost Lily Kong] was also wrong to impose the Cessation of Correspondence
requirement that the Plaintiff had to accept in order to obtain the Degree.
[Emphasis added in bold]
(A copy of the 11 August 2006 letter referred to in paragraph [233] above is exhibited below.)
I am glad that the High Court has (if nothing else) at least confirmed that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing when NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong imposed upon me the following two conditions as new graduation requirements to get my MA Degree:
(i) stop
complaining about how the university had mishandled my complaint regarding my
thesis Supervisor on the issue of his plagiarism of my thesis and/or
my research findings.
(ii)
accept the University’s decision on the clearance of my Supervisor’s name
regarding my complaint (in other words, accept the university’s cover-up of Dr
Wong Yunn Chii’s misconduct).
However, NUS still managed
to get away scot-free in spite of the above findings and also other findings,
such as NUS withholding (from me) the actual outcome of the Committee of
Inquiry (“COI”) that NUS set up to investigate my complaints against Dr Wong
Yunn Chii. The NUS COI issued a secret
report that recommended that Dr Wong be “censured,” but NUS refused to let me
see this secret report, and NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong deliberately deceived
and misled me to believe that the COI had completely exonerated Dr Wong. The
Court found that NUS should have conveyed the full outcome of the investigation
to me, and that the cover-up “saved some face for Dr Wong,” as stated
in the written judgment for my lawsuit, at paragraphs [153] and [155].
In fact, internal emails
show that officers in NUS who helped to orchestrate my expulsion were aware
that what they were doing to me was wrongful and done with the knowledge that
it was ultra vires their power. Unfortunately, the Court’s written judgment
failed to consider some of the relevant emails and went on to make untenable
conclusions.
For example, the High
Court’s written judgment omits any mention of the evidence of an incriminating
internal NUS email which proves that NUS officers knew that they had no right
to expel me, and that they were afraid of getting into “trouble” for
orchestrating the expulsion. On 29 August 2006, NUS Deputy Registrar Chan
Ng Chye sent an email about my expulsion to NUS Registrar Ang Siau Gek. In
this email, Deputy Registrar Chan Ng Chye asked NUS Registrar Ang Siau Gek: “do
you have a sense of what trouble we are to anticipate for this”.
The word “trouble” in this email proves that Deputy Registrar Chan
Ng Chye knew that what she and her accomplices were doing to me was wrong,
ultra vires the power conferred to them as public officers, and illegal,
and that they all deserved to get in trouble for what they were doing to
me. Obviously, if NUS Deputy Registrar Chan Ng Chye had honestly believed
that what NUS officers were doing were proper and legal, she wouldn’t have made
such a comment.
About forty-five minutes
later on the same afternoon (of 29 August 2006), NUS Deputy Registrar Chan Ng
Chye sent another email, this time to NUS “Senior Administrative Officer” Lau
Ai Lee. In this email, NUS Deputy Registrar Chan Ng Chye wrote: “Seems
LK [Lily Kong] is really jittery over this case.” This observation by one of Lily Kong's
accomplices, that Lily Kong was “really jittery” about her orchestration
of my expulsion, is first-hand evidence of Lily Kong's “guilty mind” since Lily
Kong's “really jittery” demeanour is clearly inconsistent with
an honest belief in the correctness of what she (Lily Kong) was doing to me –
that is, orchestrating my expulsion from NUS because I refused to submit to her
threats and drop my complaints regarding Dr Wong Yunn Chii’s misconduct and the
university’s cover-up of Dr Wong’s misconduct.
While the “really
jittery” email is mentioned briefly in the High Court’s written judgment
(at paragraphs [236]-[237]), there is no mention at all of the preceding “trouble” email
(quoted above) in the written judgment. The High Court apparently took no
notice of the “trouble” email, and the High Court judge interpreted the “jittery”
email in a way that makes absolutely no logical sense at all. At
paragraph [237], the High Court’s written judgment states that: “it is not
surprising that VP Kong [Lily Kong] felt jittery. From her point of view,
she had acted reasonably with a good outcome for the Plaintiff but the
Plaintiff was still not satisfied.”
This was not even a defence
put up by NUS, but the judge’s own unsubstantiated interpretation!
Remember, the date when Lily
Kong was observed to be “really jittery” was just a few days before NUS
expelled me, at a time when Lily Kong and her accomplices were making the
preparations for my expulsion, as shown by the evidence of a number of internal
emails that they were sending each other at that time. Obviously, people
do not feel “really jittery” because they do the right thing. Obviously, the real reason why Lily Kong was “really
jittery” about my case at that time, was that Lily Kong knew that what
she was doing to me was wrong, and she was afraid that she could get in “trouble”
– and this is supported by the “trouble” email (quoted above), which was
sent on the same day, by the same officer
who wrote the “really jittery” comment.
I strongly believe that I
have a strong case to put up before the Court of Appeal, both for my appeal of
the High Court’s decision to order me to pay NUS $169,748.77 for “costs”
and disbursements, as well as the High Court’s substantive judgment. The nature
of my case is such that there is a great deal of factual and legal “overlap”
between what’s wrong with the High Court’s substantive judgment, and what’s
wrong with the High Court’s decision to order me to pay NUS $169,748.77.
Please help me to obtain
justice by donating to my appeal for donations for the Security for Costs
funds.
Justice comes with an expensive price tag in Singapore*
This legal process is not
just expensive. Worse, it is an unfair process in which the power to
decide whether or not one can appeal to the Court of Appeal is placed in the
hands of the opposing party!
Of course, NUS blocked my
effort to appeal (NUS has said “No” to my request for a waiver of the
$20,000.) Now, I have a narrow window of
opportunity during which I can file the “Notice of Appeal” to appeal the costs
order to the Court of Appeal. This may be my last (and only) chance to
ask the Court of Appeal to hear me – but I need your help to raise the funds
for the Security deposit for “Security for Costs” before I can appeal.
It is ironic that while even
murderers and rapists are allowed to appeal their convictions, yet I cannot exercise my
legal right to appeal, despite the fact that this right of appeal supposedly
belongs to every Singaporean. I am the victim of abuse of power and
retaliation by NUS; I am a law-abiding citizen whose only “crime” was that I
stood up to injustice and I refused to drop my complaints about misconduct and
cover-up, even after NUS officers had threatened me in writing. (See,
for example, the text of the threatening letter that NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong
sent me, quoted in the High Court’s written judgment at paragraph [185]).
What is the point of a legal
right of appeal that is supposedly guaranteed to every Singaporean by law, when
there is in practice an upfront premium tied to this legal right? Should the
appellant not be able to pay the sum of $20,000, she essentially has no
right to appeal. This is especially appalling since my case is a matter of
public interest, involving institutional wrongdoing by a public body, including
dishonesty, abuse of power, cover-up, and retaliation against a whistle-blower.
The Court of Appeal
frequently reverses the decisions of lower courts, so wouldn’t handing the power to determine whether an appellant can appeal a legal case to the respondent
potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice? As already
mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, the Malaysian Court and the British
Courts do not require (or only require a minimal amount for) this sort of
security deposit. This shows that this Singapore practice is not consistent
with other common law jurisdictions.
NUS is a public institution
funded by tax dollars. As a public institution, should NUS be allowed to
continue to protect those of its officers who have already been found guilty of
wrongdoing in the High Court? Should NUS be allowed to prevent justice from
running its full course? Who or what entity is NUS answerable to – the
protection of its own dishonest public officers or full and total
accountability to the public in the name of public interest?
Some of you might say: “Wait
a minute, even NUS has the right to defend itself against a lawsuit.” While that it technically true, that does NOT
mean that NUS has the right to spend $698,940.11 in public funds to protect
wrongdoers from justice, when NUS knows that they have done wrong (as in my
case). NUS is also a “public body” which
is funded by “public funds” (ie, the taxpayers’ dollars), and NUS professors
and administrators are all “public officers” in the eyes of the law, since
their salaries are paid for by public funds.
Therefore, NUS and all of its officers owe “public duties” to the people
of Singapore, and they are entrusted with a “public trust” to use the authority
and public funds entrusted to them ONLY for proper purposes, and NOT for
improper purposes, such as protecting wrongdoers from punishment and/or “loss
of face” or retaliating against whistle-blowers. In fact, NUS and its officers have a “public
duty” to fire wrongdoers, and to report the wrongdoers to the proper
authorities.
*The high cost of justice
has been acknowledged by the Honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who has
remarked that: “the cost of legal services in Singapore must now be
acknowledged as being on the high side” and His Honour also noted
that: “It is cold comfort to those who seek justice to say that we have
a great legal system, if it is priced out of their reach.”
(Source: “Opening Address of the Honourable the Chief Justice at the Litigation Conference 2013” Organised by the Civil Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore, 31 January 2013.)
(Source: “Opening Address of the Honourable the Chief Justice at the Litigation Conference 2013” Organised by the Civil Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore, 31 January 2013.)
Please help me to obtain justice from the Court of Appeal
NUS originally claimed $698,940.11 in
legal costs and disbursements from me for the lawsuit (excluding
“interlocutory” matters). The High Court has ordered me to pay NUS $169,748.77. Although
the High Court has ordered me to pay NUS less than a quarter of what NUS
had originally claimed, it is nevertheless unjust that I have to pay any money
to NUS at all given the High Court’s findings that NUS is guilty of
wrongdoing. This is what you get for “blowing the whistle” and standing up
to injustice in Singapore.
In carrying through with its
threat to withhold my MA degree in September 2006, NUS sabotaged my PhD course
which I had already begun in August 2006 in the United States, and in doing so,
NUS sabotaged my entire academic and professional career. (I had to withdraw
from my PhD programme because I did not have the MA degree from NUS.) The abuse
of power by NUS destroyed my career, because a PhD is the basic required
qualification for a career in my field of expertise. The sabotage of my
American PhD by NUS destroyed my career in the same way that, for example,
taking a taxi driver’s driving licence away from him would destroy his career
as a taxi driver. This could amount to millions of dollars in lost income over
the course of my entire career. For example, in 2013, it was publicly
revealed and reported that NUS paid one former associate professor $225,000 per
year. At that rate, an NUS professor would earn $2.25 million dollars in
ten years.
It is arguable that NUS has misappropriated more than $700,000 of
public funds (at least $698,940.11 that NUS paid its lawyers for the
cost of trial, plus additional legal fees for interlocutory matters claimed by
NUS) for the improper purpose of fighting a legal battle to protect from
justice and punishment, the wrongdoers who abused their power, covered up
misconduct, and retaliated against a whistle-blower. For a “public body”
like NUS to improperly use public funds to protect wrongdoers from punishment
(instead of properly admitting guilt, making amends and punishing the
wrongdoers) is clearly a flagrant breach of public trust and a “wrong use” of
the taxpayers’ dollars that have been entrusted to NUS. Such a “wrong use”
clearly constitutes “misappropriation” according to the legal definition of
“misappropriation” provided by former Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who defined
“misappropriation” as “to set apart or assign to the wrong person or wrong use”
in Tan Tze Chye v PP [1997] 1 SLR(R) 876 at [37], quoted in Goh Kah
Heng v PP [2010] SGHC 167 at [44] and in Phang Wah v PP [2011] SGHC
251 at [48].
This is a national scandal! If NUS officers can get away
scot-free with such abuses while I am actually ordered by the Court
to pay a fortune to NUS, then ANY public body in Singapore can get away with
doing these things as well, to ANY Singaporean who “blows the whistle” on
cover-up and abuse of power! My case could embolden other dishonest
public officers and public bodies to abuse their power, cover up wrongdoing and
retaliate against whistle-blowers.
The individual “VP Kong” who
is mentioned in paragraph [230] of the High Court’s judgment, which is
quoted above, is Professor Lily Kong. She was formerly an NUS Vice-Provost and
formerly an NUS Vice-President; she was promoted to President of Singapore
Management University in January 2019 after she has been exposed in Court for her wrongful conduct. She is also a Member of the
Public Service Commission. Lily Kong was one of the “leaders” at NUS, who
orchestrated the retaliation by NUS against me, including my expulsion from NUS
after I blew the whistle against wrongdoing by Dr Wong Yunn Chii. She also lied about the outcome of the COI
investigation to “save face” for Dr Wong. It is manifestly unfair and unjust that dishonest public
officers such as Lily Kong get away scot-free for their misconduct and get
promoted to higher public office positions, while I am penalised for their
wrongdoing.
Here below is the threatening
letter issued by then Vice-Provost Lily Kong on 11 August 2006. This letter
is dated just two days after she was conferred the Public Administration Medal
(Silver) at the 2006 National Day Award. Someone once highlighted to me that Lily
Kong had already admitted her guilt and wrongdoing when she wrote: “While
the scholarship monies that had been paid to you will ordinarily be recoverable
by the university, NUS is prepared to waive this out of goodwill…” in the
third paragraph of the letter of 11 August 2006. Indeed, if I had failed
to complete my MA Degree requirements, NUS would have a good reason and a duty
to go after me to recover the “scholarship monies” already paid to me in the form
of monthly stipends etc., instead of throwing away the value of the NUS scholarship.
The “scholarship monies” did not belong to Lily Kong and were not hers to give
away freely. They were taxpayer dollars.
I have addressed the main content of Lily Kong’s threatening letter in the third paragraph of this letter of 11 August 2006 above, including the Court’s confirmation that Lily Kong was wrong in forcing me to “accept” the university's decisions about my complaints against Dr Wong, and that Lily Kong was also wrong to try to force me to “cease [my] correspondence.”
I should also like to add that her statement in the second paragraph of the letter of 11 August 2006: “It is therefore unclear from your protestations, your amendments to your thesis, and your refusal to comply with the uploading requirement, whether you accept or reject the examination process” is a red herring. It was a fault-finding exercise to use my MA Degree as collateral to manipulate me to agree to stop complaining about Dr Wong’s plagiarism and to drop my subsequent complaint that Lily Kong had tried to cover-up for Dr Wong following Lily Kong’s refusal to provide details about the secret COI Report. Paragraph [228] of the High Court written judgment decided that: “it was not really necessary to require the express confirmation [of the Plaintiff, i.e., my confirmation] since it was quite clear from the Plaintiff’s conduct that she had accepted the examination process. After all, she had amended and submitted her amended thesis, as required.” Paragraph [231] of the High Court written judgment decided that: “It was open to the Plaintiff to disagree with the decision of the COI on the plagiarism issue and yet accept the outcome of the examination process. The two were not as inextricably linked as VPKong had thought at the material time.” I had in fact pointed out in writing to Lily Kong that she was wrong to link the two issues, but Lily Kong did not respond to me and proceeded to get NUS to expel me from the university.
I should also like to add that her statement in the second paragraph of the letter of 11 August 2006: “It is therefore unclear from your protestations, your amendments to your thesis, and your refusal to comply with the uploading requirement, whether you accept or reject the examination process” is a red herring. It was a fault-finding exercise to use my MA Degree as collateral to manipulate me to agree to stop complaining about Dr Wong’s plagiarism and to drop my subsequent complaint that Lily Kong had tried to cover-up for Dr Wong following Lily Kong’s refusal to provide details about the secret COI Report. Paragraph [228] of the High Court written judgment decided that: “it was not really necessary to require the express confirmation [of the Plaintiff, i.e., my confirmation] since it was quite clear from the Plaintiff’s conduct that she had accepted the examination process. After all, she had amended and submitted her amended thesis, as required.” Paragraph [231] of the High Court written judgment decided that: “It was open to the Plaintiff to disagree with the decision of the COI on the plagiarism issue and yet accept the outcome of the examination process. The two were not as inextricably linked as VPKong had thought at the material time.” I had in fact pointed out in writing to Lily Kong that she was wrong to link the two issues, but Lily Kong did not respond to me and proceeded to get NUS to expel me from the university.
Your donation will help me
to try to obtain justice by appealing the costs order and the substantive
judgment to the Court of Appeal. “Elites” such as Lily Kong who are given
power and authority to exercise public functions must be held accountable when
they abuse their power. They must not be allowed to get away scot-free, with
zero accountability and total impunity, as if they are “above the law.” If the
Court of Appeal reverses the High Court’s decision and if the Court of Appeal
decides that NUS is legally liable for its wrongful actions, then there will be
public pressure to hold the wrongdoers accountable for their wrongful actions.
The wrongful public officers must indemnify NUS the legal fees which NUS are paying to its lawyers to protect the wrongful conduct of the NUS officers, especially since the High Court has already confirmed wrongdoing by Lily Kong.
Please donate to see justice restored and to see the rule of law.
Donation Details
The wrongful public officers must indemnify NUS the legal fees which NUS are paying to its lawyers to protect the wrongful conduct of the NUS officers, especially since the High Court has already confirmed wrongdoing by Lily Kong.
Please donate to see justice restored and to see the rule of law.
Donation Details
tljvnus@gmail.com
PayLah!
93884036
Bank
POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
DBS Bank Pte Ltd
12 Marina Boulevard,
DBS Asia Central,
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3,
Singapore 018982
Singapore
Bank swift code:
DBSSSGSG
Branch code:
081
Credit Card:
https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/
I would be updating the donations I collect regularly on this blog. Should I be able to raise more than $20,000, I would be using the funds for Court of Appeal filing fees and other Court fees. I would also use the funds to pay for legal advice on individual legal points because I cannot afford to pay lawyers for legal representation.
POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie
DBS Bank Pte Ltd
12 Marina Boulevard,
DBS Asia Central,
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3,
Singapore 018982
Singapore
Bank swift code:
DBSSSGSG
Branch code:
081
Credit Card:
https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/
I would be updating the donations I collect regularly on this blog. Should I be able to raise more than $20,000, I would be using the funds for Court of Appeal filing fees and other Court fees. I would also use the funds to pay for legal advice on individual legal points because I cannot afford to pay lawyers for legal representation.
