Comment about K Shanmugam withdrawn

Late afternoon Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, I received a letter from law firm Allen & Gledhill, acting for K Shanmugam. It said that the allegations regarding their client mentioned within a comment I posted following the post The media and Yaw Shin Leong, are false and scurrilous. I take Shanmugam’s word on this matter.  I have withdrawn that comment as requested.

Allen & Gledhill have also requested that I publish their letter in full, which I am happy to do:


1. We act for Mr K Shanmugam.

2. We refer to the following comments that you have made on your website,, under the Responses section of the blog posting entitled “The Media and Yaw Shin Leong” published on 8 February 2012:

“I take the points raised in the above two comments. Indeed, I think the role of the mainstream press in this issue needs to be contrasted with the relative silence when it came to allegations swirling around K Shanmugam and Foo Mee Har at various points in the recent past. That there were rumours is widely known, though as in the Yaw Shin Leong case, no one can point to any proof. But that’s not my point here. My point is that the mainstream media’s interest in the Yaw affair does not look like neutral journalism. “

(Response No 24 dated 9 February 2012 at 23:34hrs) (the “Blog Comments’)

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. But the internet being what it is. “scroobal’ has been untraceable so far.

5. Likewise, others who have repeated the allegations made by “scroobal’ have so far been untraceable.

6. Our client’s instructions are to commence proceedings against anyone who makes such allegations against our client.

7. We request that you take down the Blog Comments, and publish this letter in full on your website.

8. All our client’s rights are reserved.


Needless to say, no comments to this post will be necessary.

6 Responses to “Comment about K Shanmugam withdrawn”

  1. 1 yawningbread 18 February 2012 at 15:23

    Although I wasn’t keen on further comments following this post, inevitably people have commented. In recognition of this reality, I shall provide a link to the start of the comments that had appeared behind The Media and Yaw Shin Leong, starting from

  2. 2 Anonymous 18 February 2012 at 16:08

    As long as you are not making any defamatory remarks, there is nothing to fear. A statement of fact is a statement of fact. A rumour does exist, no matter how this letter tries to silence it. The mainstream media in so far has been playing double standard. They ought to verify the facts similar to the way they have treated Yaw. The public have eyes and can see.

  3. 3 John Senile 19 February 2012 at 01:03

    Isn’t scroobal the resident insider at sammyboy forum ? Well, well, typical SPF style. They can’t catch the loan shark, so they have to make do with his runners instead.

  4. 4 Ziggy 19 February 2012 at 18:44

    Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to get in touch with his former wife and release a joint statement dispelling all rumors once and for all?

  5. 5 Anonymous 20 February 2012 at 00:56

    Hmmm …PAP man hiding behind Singapore “Laws”. How sickening.

  6. 6 Disgruntled Government Scholars (DGS) tied to bonds and N.S unlike the foreign scholars in Singapore! 25 February 2012 at 07:55

    “Nominated Member of Parliament Eugene Tan, who is a law academic at the Singapore Management University, said that the approach taken by the political leaders has been consistent in protecting their reputation especially when it comes to defamatory remarks … He noted that Mr Lee and Mr Shanmugam are not asking for damages and costs.” – TODAY

    4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. — ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP

    verb (used with object)
    1. to institute a process in law against; bring a civil action against: to sue someone for damages.
    2. to woo or court.
    3. Obsolete. to make petition or appeal to.

    Dear, NMP Eugene Tan Law Academic at SMU. Why do you think people sue people for? An invitation to a tea party? Stay in school and try to stay out of parliament … because you are so wrong.

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

%d bloggers like this: