Media Statement

The court judgment for the first tranche of our case was released this morning. We are in the midst of reviewing the judgment and will take advice from our lawyers. We will share more details on our next step/s in due course.

Mr Low, Sylvia, Pritam

5 Comments Add yours

  1. libran1035 says:

    Thanks for the update


  2. Tan Khim Teck says:

    The battle for democracy in Singapore is an uphill task, press on & victory would beckon all of you in due course.


  3. JOHN TEO says:

    Hi, I am a Hougang residents and I support you guys all the way.
    I am not a lawyer but have found an article which might be of some use (I think) if you decided to Appeal.

    Refer to the section “Municipal Corporations” , and I quote in part:

    In a 1908 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada , an inhabitant who was not a ratepayer sued for the return to the municipality payments improperly made to a municipal officer. Council took the position that only a ratepayer had the standing to sue. The court concluded:
    The right of the inhabitants to compel the city corporation, that is the city council, as a body, to do its duty, rests on this: -that the corporation is a trustee for its inhabitants.
    This proposition was clarified in Gallagher v. Armstrong where the corporate analogy was used to explain the distinction between the municipal corporation and its councillors:
    The council are not the corporation…The inhabitants are the corporation and the council are their trustees…directors of a company are trustees for the shareholders just as municipal councillors are trustees for the inhabitants…the relationship is created by statute.
    The Gallagher decision therefore affirmed an action for breach of a fiduciary duty against municipal councillors, but not against the municipal corporation. A subsequent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada severely limited the scope of the fiduciary relationship: ..


  4. JOHN says:

    The next section on “Municipal Corporation vs. Elected Officials and Municipal Officers”

    “…. . One interesting decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, decided in a common law context (as opposed to under conflict of interest legislation) is Edmonton v. Hawrelak . The City sued Hawrelak, a former mayor, who had been removed under conflict of interest legislation, for damages for breach of fiduciary duty for profits earned by him as a result of City planning decisions. The City was awarded disgorgement damages at trial on the basis that the mayor was a fiduciary to the municipality, that he cannot act in conflict with that duty, and it is immaterial whether he acted in good faith or whether the City suffered a loss. The decision was affirmed on appeal, but reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court, on a factual basis, found no breach of a fiduciary duty. Although the court agreed that the actions violated the conflict of interest legislation therefore justifying the mayor’s removal, it also found that there was no statutory basis for recovery by the City.
    A strong dissenting opinion would have upheld the decision of the courts below. What is instructive about this case is that you can have a finding of conflict under the conflict of interest legislation without finding a corresponding breach of a fiduciary duty. ”

    Not sure if this would help, But I wish you guys all the best.
    Most opposition supporters (like myself) understand that we Singaporeans need many more Opposition MPs to speak (and vote) for us in Parliament against the tyrannical PAP government.


  5. Sheryl says:

    We are strongly believe in you (WP). You are not alone. 💪💪💪


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s