The Online Citizen
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
Singapore
A Singaporean woman, Geno Ong, posted a suicide note before taking her own life, accusing Raymond Ng of financially ruining her through multiple lawsuits. Ong said her legal fees had become unbearable. Ng expressed sadness but denied responsibility, stating the lawsuits were for defamation.
Published 20 hours ago
on 8 September 2024
On 6 September 2024, Singaporean woman Geno Ong, also known by her Facebook alias “Mai Siao Siao,” tragically took her own life after posting an emotional note on her Facebook page.Ong accused businessman Raymond Ng, associated with the group “Healing the Divide,” of financially devastating her through multiple lawsuits. She claimed that her legal fees, which had ballooned to nearly S$100,000, had left her unable to continue defending herself.Ong’s Facebook post detailed the severe psychological and physical toll the lawsuits had taken on her, recounting sleepless nights, anxiety, and deteriorating health.She also accused Ng and his wife, Iris Koh, of targeting average Singaporeans with frivolous lawsuits to drain their financial resources.Ong’s note has raised serious concerns about the pressures of prolonged legal battles and the potential misuse of the legal system to financially exhaust individuals.
Calvin Cheng’s Response and Call for Legal Reform
Former Nominated Member of Parliament, Calvin Cheng, confirmed Ong’s passing after verifying it with her family and the authorities. Cheng expressed deep regret that he had been unable to offer more help when Ong reached out to him two weeks before her death. In an emotional Facebook post, Cheng urged those facing legal challenges to seek support, stressing, “Nothing is worth taking your own life for.”Cheng then followed up with another post, calling for a reassessment of the Simplified Civil Process, a system introduced to make justice more accessible by capping legal costs and allowing individuals to represent themselves in civil disputes. While the system was intended to reduce financial burdens and make legal action easier, Cheng argued that it had led to unintended consequences. He explained that those with time and education could navigate the process with little expense, while others without such resources were left vulnerable.Cheng wrote: “The introduction of a simplified civil process had noble intentions: by making it relatively easy and cheap to sue people, justice can be available to all. Costs are limited even in what you can claim when you win. In theory, it is also easy and cheap to defend oneself. In reality, only people with a lot of time and some education can do it.”He pointed out that the system created an imbalance: “This brings about asymmetry: on the one hand, you have litigants who have a lot of time, and it costs them next to nothing to sue… On the other hand, people with no time and limited financial resources suffer financial pain and stress.”Cheng emphasized that while the system was designed to prevent financial strain, it could be exploited, as in Ong’s case, where repeated lawsuits exacerbated the stress and financial burden on the defendant. He called on authorities to reexamine the process, arguing that it currently pressures ordinary people into settling lawsuits just to avoid the costs and emotional toll of protracted legal battles.Notably, Cheng and Raymond Ng are also currently embroiled in their own defamation suits against each other over social media posts, adding to the public focus on how litigation can be used in personal disputes.
Raymond Ng’s Response
Raymond Ng, the central figure in Ong’s allegations, responded to the news of her death through a blog post, entitled “Suicide Due to Fear of Criminal Prosecution – Geno Ong Took Her Own Life (畏罪自杀)”.Ng expressed his shock and sadness at the confirmation of Ong’s passing, though he initially thought it might have been a hoax, as Ong had spread defamatory information about him in the past.After alleging that he verified her death with the police, Ng acknowledged the tragedy, but he vehemently denied any responsibility for her suicide.Ng explained that the lawsuits he had filed against Ong were based on serious defamation allegations she had made, particularly those involving government officers from the Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). Ng claimed that Ong had falsely accused him of criminal activities and spread rumours that he was being targeted by authorities.He emphasized that his legal actions were intended to protect his reputation and seek justice, not to cause harm.Ng also revealed that despite offering Ong opportunities to settle the matter out of court or provide evidence for her claims, she had refused to engage in meaningful dialogue or mediation.He noted that her continued defamation had left him no choice but to pursue legal action.“By killing herself, she also attempted to blackmail the legal system into her own sense of justice. She can just anyhow defame anyone, and when she is naturally sued for defamation, she retaliates by killing herself.”Ng expressed concern about the broader implications of suicide in response to legal challenges, arguing that such actions could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity of the judicial system. He stressed that defamation laws exist to protect individuals from baseless attacks, and Ong’s tragic decision should not be used as a deterrent against legal accountability.
Iris Koh’s Response
Iris Koh, Ng’s wife, also addressed Ong’s accusations in a detailed blog post on “Healing the Divide“.Koh, expressed her shock and sadness at the news of Ong’s death but refuted claims that she or Ng were responsible for her suicide. Koh clarified that she had never met or spoken with Ong and described the ongoing defamation as relentless and damaging.“Despite the legal conflict between her and Raymond, it’s deeply unfortunate that she chose to end her life in this way. I never met her, and we never spoke, so it’s heartbreaking that things escalated to such an extreme,” Koh wrote.Koh outlined how Ong had spread falsehoods about her and Ng, even going so far as to contact individuals in Koh’s network to damage their reputations further.She noted that Ong’s allegations had contributed to Ng’s arrest in March 2021, although he remains uncharged. Koh stressed that Ong had access to legal representation and spent significant amounts on legal fees, while Ng had pursued his lawsuits without a lawyer.“If Raymond’s case was baseless, her legal team could have easily struck it out. But they didn’t,” Koh stated.Koh expressed frustration that despite the opportunity to resolve the matter through legal means, Ong had chosen to escalate the situation. She rejected claims that they had targeted average Singaporeans and reiterated that their lawsuits were based on defamation, not malice. Koh also urged the public not to sensationalize the tragedy or cast blame on her and Ng without understanding the full context.Koh is known for her involvement as the founder of Healing the Divide, which gained attention for its opposition to Singapore’s COVID-19 vaccination policies. The group actively campaigned against the government’s vaccination program and measures, raising concerns over vaccine safety and promoting alternative viewpoints regarding COVID-19 regulations.She is facing 14 charges related to conspiring with a doctor to submit false vaccination status records to MOH. The charges stemmed from allegations that she and the doctor assisted individuals in fraudulently obtaining COVID-19 vaccination certificates without actually receiving the vaccine.A video published in July, have the couple explain the legal dispute between Ong and them in further detail
Calvin Cheng followed up with another post, calling for a reassessment of the Simplified Civil Process, which was initially introduced to make justice more accessible by capping legal costs and allowing individuals to represent themselves in civil disputes. In his post, Cheng explained that while the process was meant to lower the barriers to justice, it inadvertently created an imbalance.
Cheng wrote: “The introduction of a simplified civil process had noble intentions: by making it relatively easy and cheap to sue people, justice can be available to all. Costs are limited even in what you can claim when you win. In theory, it is also easy and cheap to defend oneself. In reality, only people with a lot of time and some education can do it.”
He pointed out that the system created an imbalance: “This brings about asymmetry: on the one hand, you have litigants who have a lot of time, and it costs them next to nothing to sue… On the other hand, people with no time and limited financial resources suffer financial pain and stress.”
Cheng emphasized that while the system was designed to prevent financial strain, it could be exploited, as in Ong’s case, where repeated lawsuits exacerbated the stress and financial burden on the defendant. He called on authorities to reexamine the process, arguing that it currently pressures ordinary people into settling lawsuits just to avoid the costs and emotional toll of protracted legal battles.
Notably, Cheng and Raymond Ng are also currently embroiled in their own defamation suits against each other over social media posts, adding to the public focus on how litigation can be used in personal disputes.
“The introduction of a simplified civil process had noble intentions: by making it relatively easy and cheap to sue people, justice can be available to all. Costs are limited even in what you can claim when you win. In theory, it is also easy and cheap to defend oneself. In reality, only people with a lot of time and some education can do it,” Cheng wrote.
He highlighted the disparity between litigants who have time and resources and those who do not, explaining that the latter group is often forced to settle due to the financial strain of hiring lawyers and the stress of defending themselves. He pointed out how this system can be exploited, with individuals like Ong facing lawsuits repeatedly due to the ease of filing under this process.
“This brings about asymmetry: on the one hand, you have litigants who have a lot of time, and it costs them next to nothing to sue… On the other hand, people with no time and limited financial resources suffer financial pain and stress,” Cheng added.
Under Singapore law, defamation does not require proof of actual damage to reputation. A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to lower a person’s standing in the eyes of others