Re Monisha Devaraj and other matters [2022] SGHC 93

The tremendous public interest in the applicants’ identities seems to have been borne by a mix of curiosity, indignation, as well as sympathy. But strong sentiments may sometimes interfere with the proper understanding of the idea of second chances. We know that there are different kinds of people where second chances are concerned — those who believe in them, and those who don't. And there are those who need them, and those who give them. And in between, there is a vast stretch in which we can debate to no end as to who is deserving and who is not.

Coming to this instance — sometimes, redemption cannot be claimed behind the mask of anonymity, but by baring one's face and looking everyone in the eye, to see which kind of persons one confronts. Facing them in this way, one develops the character of fortitude that the path forward requires. Sometimes one might see an unforgiving face, but, I believe, more often than not, it will be a face that says, “Get up and try again; you can get it right”.

Initially I believed that redacting the names of the applicants would let them to go about the process of recovery quietly and uneventfully, but I am now of the view that it is better to face the publicity than to hide from it. For these, and the reasons advanced by Mr Jeyendran and counsel’s submissions, I am allowing the AG’s application to rescind the redaction and sealing orders.

It leaves me to make one more point. Having concluded its responsibilities thus far, the Law Society has a new responsibility of helping the applicants involved in this episode. And I am sure there are many members of the Law Society who are ready to lend a hand.