• Justice Audrey Lim wanted clarity on former bus driver Chua Qwong Meng’s position regarding his lawsuit
• Mr Chua’s initial hearing a week ago was disrupted when his former lawyer M Ravi told the judge to recuse herself
• Mr Chua’s new counsel, Mr Lim Tean, said that this was never his client’s intention
• Mr Lim said that Mr Ravi had acted without Mr Chua’s instruction

SINGAPORE — A former bus driver who is suing SBS Transit for alleged unfair work practices clarified in the High Court on Monday (Nov 29) that he never intended to have the judge presiding over his case recused, and that he still wishes to proceed with the litigation process, contrary to what his former counsel had said.

Mr Chua Qwong Meng made this clarification through his new lawyer Lim Tean from law firm Carson Law.

Justice Audrey Lim had called for all parties involved in the case to be physically present in court on Monday to clarify what position Mr Chua intended to take for the case.

Mr Chua, a representative of 13 bus drivers, said previously that about S$720,000 is involved in the allegations of all their suits, which include unpaid overtime fees and contentions on the maximum consecutive number of work days allowed.

These drivers were last represented by Mr M Ravi from law firm KK Cheng Law LCC, but he was discharged after a disruptive court hearing last Monday.

The appointment of Mr Lim as Mr Chua’s new counsel was announced last Wednesday.

During last Monday’s hearing, which was held by a video call, Mr Ravi had at one point referred to the opposing counsel, Mr Davinder Singh, a senior counsel from Davinder Singh Chambers, as a “clown” and accused Justice Lim of being biased and demanded that she disqualify herself from hearing the case.

Mr Ravi had also told the court that Mr Chua no longer had any faith in Singapore’s judicial system and that he no longer wished to proceed.

Mr Lim told the court that what happened last Monday had struck his client “like a thunderbolt”.

“He was bewildered by what happened in that room, he thought he had fallen out of the wrong side of the bed that morning,” Mr Lim said, adding that his client had immediately discharged his former lawyer after the fracas.

“I want to state clearly for the record that it was never Mr Chua's intention to apply for your honour to recuse yourself.” 

Mr Lim added that Mr Chua intends to press on with his litigation against his former employer.

“What was stated by (Mr Chua’s) former counsel was done totally without his instructions,” Mr Lim said.

Justice Lim ordered a pre-trial conference to be held in mid-December, when fresh trial dates will be given.

COMPLAINTS FILED

Speaking to reporters after the brief hearing, which lasted about 15 minutes, Mr Chua said that he has filed a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore about Mr Ravi’s conduct, as well as made a police report.

Speaking in Mandarin, the 62-year-old Singaporean said that Mr Ravi had told him to file a false statement with the police to say that Mr Singh’s colleague, Mr Timothy Lin, had stolen documents.

“This is not true at all,” he said. “At that time, (Mr Lin) just checked whether I had any illegal documents... and only told me I could not have my mobile phone with me.” 

Last Monday, Mr Chua was about to begin his testimony via video call from Mr Ravi’s office when Mr Ravi alleged that there was a “breach” in Mr Chua’s right to a fair trial because Mr Lin was sitting in the same room as Mr Chua.

Mr Ravi had told the court that Mr Lin’s presence in the office would give him access to “privileged communications”. 

But Justice Lim noted that such a practice had been done before and was meant to ensure that evidence was given without coaching or other influence.

Mr Chua told reporters on Monday that he did not object to Mr Lin’s presence and that he had even been told by Mr Ravi’s own assistant that Mr Lin would be present to observe the proceedings.

In any case, Mr Chua said that the incident last Monday left him feeling very anxious and confused.

After Mr Ravi’s dismissal, he said that he scrambled to find a new lawyer. Before Mr Lim agreed to take on the case, Mr Chua said that he had already sought help from at least five other lawyers.

“No one wanted to take my case and I don’t know why,” he said. “It was a real headache at that point… I don’t know how to deal with this kind of situation.”