Words more powerful than writing?

I find it very interesting that while the people from JTC, Hyflux and UTAC were unanimously verbally condemning Andrew Kuan's credential, Andrew seems to have all the written evidence to prove them otherwise. Written evidence that doesn't get much press space in newspapers.

MP defends what he said about Kuan

In court papers, he says views about ex-presidential hopeful were true

By Aaron Low
Oct 15, 2005
The Straits Times

BUSINESSMAN and MP Inderjit Singh says statements he made about former presidential hopeful Andrew Kuan's employment record and work performance were both true and amounted to fair comment.

Mr Singh made this point in his response to a defamation suit launched by Mr Kuan against him.

In his documents filed at the High Court last Friday, the People's Action Party MP also said that he had made his views about Mr Kuan known as there was public interest in the matter.

Mr Kuan, who is not represented by a lawyer, filed his defamation lawsuit on Sept 13, alleging Mr Singh defamed him in a statement to the press on his employment record and work performance when he worked at United Test & Assembly Centre. The company, founded by Mr Singh, hired Mr Kuan as a consultant for several months in 1998. Mr Singh was then its president.

Mr Kuan claimed Mr Singh's comments, which were published in newspapers on Aug 13 and 14, were meant to be understood that he was not competent and therefore fired from his position.

He also alleged that the remarks by the MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC implied that he was not reliable. Mr Singh responded to the suit and his lawyers filed his defence at the High Court last Friday.

The Straits Times applied to the High Court legal registry to view the document. In it, Mr Singh said his remarks provided a 'balanced account' of his experience with Mr Kuan.

Mr Singh, who is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Mr Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier, added that he made his views known because they were a matter of public interest at the time.

Mr Kuan was applying for an eligibility certificate to contest the presidential election.

The remarks were meant to mean that Mr Kuan did not have the requisite qualities to become the president of Singapore, stated Mr Singh.

He added that he had a 'moral and social duty to publish the statement' to the public and that Singaporeans 'had a corresponding interest in receiving the information'.

On Aug 11, JTC Corporation commented on Mr Kuan's employment record. The statutory board said he was asked to leave as it was not satisfied with his performance. His application for a certificate of eligibility was eventually rejected by the Presidential Elections Committee on the grounds that he 'could not have the experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to effectively discharge' the duties of president.

Mr Kuan is seeking damages and legal costs from Mr Singh.

But Mr Kuan is also facing a defamation suit himself. Lawyer Chia Boon Teck, a former management council member of the condominium where they both live, is suing him for remarks he made to newspapers soon after he announced his presidential bid.

When contacted yesterday, Mr Kuan said he did not wish to comment, as the case was already before the courts. Mr Singh and his lawyers likewise also declined comment.

Why would they want to extend him for another 2 months if he's really that bad? So that they fire him then and not earlier???:

RESPONSE TO UTAC (MR INDERJIT SINGH’S) PRESS STATEMENT IN ST 13 AUGUST 2005 (By Andrew Kuan Yoke Loon on 13 August 2005)

The details of my contributions are set out in my 5-page Employment Highlights already released to the press previously. A copy of the Employment Highlights are available on my personal website www.andrewkuan.com. I was invited by Mr Inderjit Singh, President of United Test Center Singapore Pte Ltd (UTAC) to join as Consultant in July 1998. I never intended or sought to be a CFO in his organization. I was merely a Consultant through my company Blue Arrow International Pte Ltd, to set up his finance department and to advise on financial management matters. My letter of appointment dated 6 Augus t 1998, issued by Mr Inderjit Singh makes this clear: “We are pleased to appoint you as consultant with effect from 1st July 1998. This appointment is for a period of six months from the effective date. Both parties may terminate this appointment with a one month notice in writing.” “Your appointment is on a part time basis and you are expected to work on United Test Center Singapore Pte Ltd (“the Company”) business for a period of 2.5 days a week. You will report directly to the President and be responsible for the task assigned by the Company.” I was never terminated by Mr Inderjit Singh “after some five months”. On the contrary, after I completed my initial six months, Mr Inderjit Singh extended my appointment as Consultant for another two months. By a letter dated 28 December 1998, Mr Inderjit wrote: “We are pleased to ext end your appointment as consultant for another two months from 1 January 1999 to 28 February 1999.” My working style at UTAC had been open and inclusive, even though I reported directly to the President, Mr Inderjit Singh. Typically, I would conduct an open briefing at management meetings. Copies of agenda, including attachments for discussion are given to the President, Mr Inderjit Singh, and all senior management as well as the two financial managers. One example would be the Financial Meeting on 1 September 1998. I hope the above clarifies and corrects the factual errors in Mr Inderjit Singh’s press statement. I ask the members of the press to please publicize this response in full for the benefit of transparency and complete information to all Singaporeans for their informed choice. Thank you.