The "Count on Me Singapore" Copyright Dispute Saga

By Mark Teng, Executive Director (Profile), Michael Yee, Incoming Trainee ‘23

“Count on Me Singapore” (composed by Mr Hugh Harrison) has stood the test of time as being one of Singapore’s most endearing National Day songs. Since 1986, it has been a household favourite of most Singaporean families, regardless of race, language or religion. Yet, in an unusual turn of events, “Count On Me Singapore” found itself tangled in an Intellectual Property (IP) Dispute with one Joseph Mendoza.

The Dispute

Many Singaporeans caught wind of a video that depicted what looked like students in India singing the familiar melodic tune of “Count On Me Singapore” on the Internet. Not only was the song (“We Can Achieve”) identical in melody, but the lyrics were also substantially similar. The main differences were that the word “Singapore” was replaced by “India” or “Mother India”, and several other words were mistakenly transcribed (so alleged by one Mr Hugh Harrison). To that end, many Singaporeans, “st[ood] together, heart to heart” to express their displeasure over various social media platforms.

 Mr Mendoza alleged that he first wrote “We Can Achieve” in 1983, 3 years prior to the composition of “Count On Me Singapore” in 1986. Thereafter, Mr Mendoza alleged that he sold the rights to Pauline India, a publishing house, in 1999. However, when asked to furnish proof of Mr Mendoza’s composition back in 1983, he responded by saying that “[w]hatever data I had on the performance has gone missing since all cassettes and written (documents) were all washed away in the floods of July 26, 2005”. The only “living proof” is that of “250 orphans who first learnt [“We Can Achieve”] in 1983” at Bal Bhavan.

 In response, Mr Harrison alleged that he had cogent and well-documented evidence of how his composition of “Count On Me Singapore” was “evolved both lyrically and melodically over several months with input from both the [Singaporean] government, the agency and the musical production team”. Additionally, Mr Harrison noted that it would certainly be a “wild coincidence after all the changes that took place that we happened to land exactly on Joey Mendoza’s version (sic)”.

 Mr Harrison also took this matter personally as a “direct attack on [his] integrity and professionalism” as Mr Mendoza’s claim that he was the original creator of the song implied that Mr Harrison had copied it from him.

The Settlement

After much probing by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (“MCCY”), Mr Mendoza “unconditionally and irrevocably” retracted all claims towards the lyrics and tune of “We Can Achieve” which is the song in dispute with “Count on Me Singapore”. As noted by MCCY, Mr Mendoza also apologized for the confusion that he caused and stated that “he had no intention of attacking the integrity and professionalism of Mr Hugh Harrison”.

 This finally puts the matter that has been the centre of much debate amongst Singaporeans at rest.

Link to the Original

Link to Straits Times Coverage on the Issue

The Law on Copyright

This popular topic of conversation brings to light the importance of copyright, not only in the local setting, but in the global context.

For there to be copyright infringement, there needs to be proof of copying. As in the current dispute at hand, substantial similarity of a work will give rise to the presumption of copying. This is especially the case when a "copier" had prior access to the original owner’s work. If a person can show that there is a “close similarity” between the two works, this is grounds for a strong inference that the “copier” had copied the original owner’s work. The “copier” can then, refute the presumption of copying by providing evidence of independent creation. This can manifest in the form of internal company memorandums or research just to name a few.

If Mr Mendoza had been able to prove that he independently arrived at the same result as Mr Harrison, then there would not have been any copyright infringement. Copyright law does not give absolute monopoly to a single party over a work, and two parties can independently arrive at the same result.

However, Mr Mendoza could not discharge his burden of proof to show that he had independently arrived at the same result and admitted that he does not have any evidence to prove his case. The proof is in the pudding, and in this case, the pudding was washed away in the 2005 Mumbai floods.

Defamation if Mr Mendoza stood by his claim?

Suppose that Mr Mendoza stood by his claim of having 250 orphans as “living proof”, what then?

Apart from having to overcome many evidential barriers and hurdles, such as proving that his witness was part of the 250 orphans, Mr Mendoza could also have found himself in a possible defamation action from Mr Harrison since Mr Mendoza’s statement implied that Mr Harrison had copied the song from him, which had the potential of lowering Mr Harrison’s estimation as a competent and respected composer amongst right-thinking members of society. For a prima facie case of defamation, Mr Harrison would need to prove that (1) a defamatory statement was made by Mr Mendoza; (2) the defamatory statement had reference to him; and (3) the defamatory statement was published.

Link to Information on Defamation Suit - Ashley Liew v Soh Rui Yong DC 1784/2019

Takeaways

What then can we learn from this dispute?

In Singapore, a legal dispute is a complex and costly matter. While there are a myriad of factors that can affect your case, it essentially boils down to the strength of your evidence. The more compelling your evidence, the easier it will be to convince the judge that your version of events is true.

Thus, it is of utmost importance that you or your business maintain a certain level of prudence and discipline in keeping, for example, the necessary minutes in meetings in the unfortunate event that a dispute arises in the future.

We also wish to highlight to you that going to court might not necessarily be the ideal solution to put to rest any grievances you might have. Litigation in Singapore unequivocally entails a winner and a loser. Often, this puts a strain on your commercial relationship with other business partners or entities. Moreover, decisions made by the court are necessarily public in nature and the publicised outcome could affect your business.

Hence, you might want to consider other avenues of dispute resolution to meet your needs. In Singapore, there is an array of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, notably, mediation, negotiation and arbitration, each catering to a specific demographic of needs.

The 3 main benefits of adopting ADR instead of litigation are that (1) ADR is usually private; (2) it is usually less costly and; (3) there is room for compromise and settling a dispute amicably.

The conclusion of the “Count on me Singapore” saga is a case in point, with everything being settled in a matter of weeks, without any further drama. It was through some form of negotiation or mediation that allowed for this satisfactory (and fairly amicable) outcome.

With this in mind, we leave you with a quote:

“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; Courage is also what it takes to Sit down and listen.”

-             Winston Churchill

If you have any IP disputes or simply want to know more about novel solutions to appropriately settle your disputes, do drop us an email at ask@that.legal and #LetsTalkAboutYourChallenge.