NEWS: Help Jeanne Ten Fund Court Challenge Against NUS for Wrongful Denial of Master Degree.

Left to Right: Dan De Costa, Khush Chopra, Jeanne Ten, and Kieran James, Joo Chiat Road, May 2019.

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!

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 on my blog.

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.
Credit Card: https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/

ARTICLE: "NUS escapes legal liability for Lily Kong's wrongful action against me," by Jeanne Ten, 18/6/2019.

Singapore Civil Society Activists. Left to right: Dan De Costa, Kieran James, Prabu Ramachandran, Jeanne Ten, Anonymous @ Joo Chiat Road, 20 May 2019.

ARTICLE: Dear Honourable Mdm Hotovely,

Shalom Aleichem and I hope this email finds you well and in good spirits as it has not been with myself.

I wish to raise awareness about a Professor Lily Kong in Singapore. I strongly believe that the Embassy of Israel in Singapore and Her Excellency Simona Halperin are unaware of the disreputable character of this particular Professor, whom Her Excellency exalted in a post. The post also includes a photograph of Her Excellency standing beside the mentioned professor. Kindly refer to the copy of the aforesaid photo and attached link at the end of this email.

Professor Lily Kong is a dishonest individual, who abused her power to conceal wrongdoing during her tenure as Vice-Provost at the National University of Singapore (NUS). When I blew the whistle on the wrongdoing of her fellow colleague who is another another faculty member, Lily Kong attempted to silence me and when I refused to submit to her intimidations, she retaliated by expelling me from the University, thus destroying my career in the process.

The High Court of Singapore has already found that Lily Kong's actions against me were "wrongful" in a written judgement in the Singapore High Court entitled Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2018] SGHC 158, which is available online in the website of the Court via this link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/s-667-2012-(ten-leu-jiun)-v-nus-(final)-pdf.pdf

I reproduce parts of paragraphs [229], [230], [231], and [234] of the written judgement of Justice Woo Bih Li below. These paragraphs deal with some of the High Court's findings regrading key facts of the case. The threats Lily Kong made against me are found in her letter dated 11 Aug 2006 which is reproduced at paragraph [185].

Dan De Costa, Khush Chopra, Jeanne Ten, Kieran James.

In a normal, functioning first world democracy, any professor or university administrator found guilty of such abuses of power would have been fired!  However, this was not the case and Lily Kong has gone on to be promoted and even honoured as the new President of Singapore Management University (SMU) after a purported international search was conducted which found no other suitable candidate besides herself.  Lily Kong has managed to get away relatively scot-free, unscathed, with absolutely no accountability, and without the requirement to make any restitution.

Let me elaborate.

My interest in the posts of your Embassy, "Israel in Singapore," stems from my interest in the cultures of the Middle East.  Academically, I have studied on the Jews of Medieval Iberia, and in fact, I had a discussion with a Professor about the possibility of doing a PhD at your esteemed Ben Gurion University upon completion of my second Masters degree.

However, I did not pursue that route as I had to return to Singapore to try and extract some accountability from the National University of Singapore (NUS) in the wrongful denial of my (first) Master of Arts degree. Although I had completed and met all of the academic requirements for the award of my first Masters degree at NUS, the same Lily Kong, then NUS Vice-Provost, expelled me from the university after I refused to cave in to her unreasonable demands that I stop complaining about her mishandling of a complaint that I had made against the wrongdoing of a professor.

Lily Kong, who was the Vice-Provost at the time of my complaint to NUS, lied to me about the outcome of an NUS investigation regarding the complaint I made against her dishonourable colleague, who had defrauded public funds by utilising a grant application that plagiarised my original research work.  Lily Kong deceived me into believing that a Committee of Inquiry (“COI”) that she had convened to look into my complaint, had exonerated the faculty member.  When I demanded transparency and accountability from her regarding how she had conducted the investigation, Lily Kong attempted to silence me, by threatening (in writing) to deny me the award of my degree unless I agreed to stop complaining. When I refused to submit to her improper demands despite her intimidation, Lily Kong followed through on her threats and proceeded to expel me from NUS.

In expelling me and depriving me of my Masters degree, Lily Kong had breached NUS Statutes and Regulations, which stipulate student expulsion via a Board of Discipline hearing, and deprivation of a student’s degree through the resolution of the University Senate. None of these statutory instruments were applied before Lily Kong expelled me from NUS..

The High Court of Singapore has already determined that Lily Kong's actions against me were "wrong". These findings were set out in a written judgement. The High Court has determined that:

"... importantly, it was wrong of VP Kong [Vice-Provost Lily Kong] to impose the first part of the Acceptance requirement as a condition for awarding the Degree ..." (Source: para 229 of the written judgement of the Singapore High Court).

"... on the second part of the Acceptance requirement, ie, to require the Plaintiff to accept the decision of the COI ... VP Kong [Vice-Provost Lily Kong] admitted in cross-examination that it would not be correct for her to impose 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." (Source: paragraph 230 of the written judgement of the Singapore High Court.)

"... VP Kong [Vice-Provost Lily Kong] was also wrong in imposing the second part of the Acceptance requirement..." (Source: paragraph 231 of the written judgement of the Singapore High Court.)

"... I am also of the view that VP Kong [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." (Source: paragraph 234 of the written judgement of the Singapore High Court.)

May I point your good self to the published High Court judgment Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2018] SGHC 158 at this link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/s-667-2012-(ten-leu-jiun)-v-nus-(final)-pdf.pdf

Lily Kong was promoted to the position of President of Singapore Management University (SMU) in 2019, despite the findings of the High Court.  It is most appalling that an educator who has been found guilty of wrongdoing by the High Court nevertheless managed to escape liability, with zero accountability and total impunity, and has even been promoted to higher office, as President of SMU!

In spite of the High Court’s findings that Lily Kong was guilty of wrongdoing while she was the Vice-Provost of NUS, the High Court nevertheless allowed NUS to escape all liability for Lily Kong’s wrongful actions against me, which destroyed my career and caused me great distress in the process.  Lily Kong’s retaliation against me sabotaged a PhD course I had already started at the University of Illinois in Chicago, USA.  Without my Master of Arts degree, I was unable to find a place in another PhD course.  I was therefore compelled by the circumstances to study for what was effectively my second Masters degree. Without a PhD, my reasonable hopes for a career in my field of expertise were diminished.  I do not wish this upon anyone who is studying in NUS or SMU now or in the future.

NUS has spent at least S$700,000 of (presumably) public funds to hire top lawyers to fight the case in Court to protect dishonest officers such as Lily Kong. It is reasonable to believe these monies were derived from public funds, since NUS is a public university funded by tax dollars. At the last hearing on 13 May 2019, NUS repositioned the amount it is requesting the High Court to order me to pay NUS (originally at around $700,000 ) to $400,000 plus.  This sum will effectively render me a bankrupt.  With this, NUS is sending a signal to would-be whistle blowers who have been or were wronged, which is: "If you even try to blow the whistle on us (NUS), we will certainly destroy you!”

NUS is currently blocking my efforts to appeal this case to the Court of Appeal by insisting that I pay a "security deposit” to NUS.

This is a matter of public interest since NUS as well as SMU are institutions funded by the Singapore taxpayer and Lily Kong is its public officer.

By associating with Lily Kong, Israeli officers have degraded their own public image and prestige. I hope you will update your Facebook page "Israel in Singapore" accordingly once you have arrived at an informed decision of what is the right course of action to take after reading this letter.

May I also respectfully urge your good self to reconsider the Embassy's decision to collaborate with disreputable and dishonest public officers such as Lily Kong unless there are fundamental changes which require such public officers to be held accountable for their wrongful actions.

Yours faithfully,

TEN, Leu-Jiun Jeanne (Ms)