This story was printed from TODAYonline 
Minister for Home Affairs, Director of Prison Services among those named in suit
Friday • March 28, 2008
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
IT was described by the Government as a "regrettable" administrative mistake, and one it took seriously, including censuring the judge who had failed to spot the error. The court clerk responsible also resigned.
But the family of Mr Dickson Tan, who was wrongly given three extra strokes of the cane, is refusing to let the matter rest.
They are suing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Director of Prison Services for negligence, and the Superintendent of the Admiralty West Prison — where Mr Tan was jailed — for breach of duty.
On Wednesday, Mr Tan's family filed a 13-page writ of summons against the Government for the incident, which had dominated headlines last year.
Mediation talks over two months had broken down last September.
According to the writ, a copy of which was obtained by Today, the Government has made an interim payment of $8,000 as compensation. And while the writ did not state the total sum the family is seeking, Today understands it is just over four times that amount.
This is despite the fact that earlier, the family had indicated they would settle for nothing less than $300,000. At one point last year, they asked for a $3-million settlement — of which $2.7 million would go to charity — a sum the Government said was unacceptable.
Among other claims, the family wants compensation for medical expenses, loss of future earnings and "marriage prospects". They are also claiming exemplary damages by alleging that the wrong was deliberate or grossly negligent.
According to a psychiatric report, Mr Tan was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, paranoia and "possible development or worsening to schizophrenia". In fact, Mr Tan was exempted from National Service following his release from prison, due to his psychiatric condition, his mother, housewife Ho Gee Lin, 53, told Today.
The Government has publicly acknowledged the mistake, apologised to the family and gone about setting up a "comprehensive system of checks" to prevent a repeat occurence.
But Mr Tan's family is alleging that his protests against being given the wrong number of strokes were repeatedly ignored. They claimed, for instance, that in an interview before the caning, the prison's Assistant Superintendent had responded to his protests by saying the records in the file could not be wrong.
The Government has publicly refuted the family's claims, maintaining that Mr Tan did not raise any objections about the number of strokes he had been sentenced to, despite having the chance to do so on three separate occasions.
The lawyers for Mr Tan's family said that the writ would be served on the Attorney-General's Chambers today. The Attorney-General, which represents the Government, will have until April 7 to respond.