No wonder Dr Sushilan Vasoo was so effective in eliciting apologies from two websites with his lawyer's letters of demand pertaining to words “published maliciously and recklessly”. Not everyone can spare a year to be shoved around in court. As for the "fabricated evidence", this is the relevant text from Chee Soon Juan’s book, "Democratically Speaking" (page 199):
"The use of research funds had to be approved by the head of department which was S Vasoo at that time. The courier fee used for the delivery of my wife's dissertation was approved by Vasoo. How can one be accused of misusing funds when the expenditure was submitted for approval and paid by the Bursar only upon approval (researchers don't handle the money).
"As for the taxi claims, Vasoo had accused me of inflating my claims by a few dollars each time I made a trip from my office at NUS to the schools where I was conducting my research. He sought to prove that I had cheated on my claims by taking a taxi himself and tracing the route that I had taken. He produced the receipt and said that the fare was lower than what I had claimed. There were two problems with his allegation. First, he did not book the taxis through the telephone as I did (I had equipment to carry and couldn't have gone to the road to hail a cab). The booking fee added to the fare. Second, he took the trip on a Sunday whereas I took mine on a regular working day when the traffic is heavier and, hence, a more expensive trip."
Even if CPIB may not be involved should Vasoo have taken on his detractors to demand satisfaction, the thought of being tarred and feathered by the mainstream media in Singapore must be a potent deterrent. As for the CPIB itself, one of its officers is currently reported to be undergoing investigation for suspected financial impropriety. CPIB has confirmed the case in a statement and said that it has referred the matter to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). It remains to be seen if similar mud packs will be applied for this case.