/
Blogger Ngerng arriving at the High Court on July 1, 2015
Blogger Ngerng arriving at the High Court on July 1, 2015
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Ngerng
- Thread starter CoffeeAhSoh
- Start date
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
in video man in white long sheeve shirt is zit uncle Leong S H ?
in video man in white long sheeve shirt is zit uncle Leong S H ?
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
SINGAPORE - The three-day hearing to assess the amount of damages blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation began on Wednesday (July 1) morning in the High Court.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin had ruled last November that Mr Ngerng, 34, defamed PM Lee by suggesting the Prime Minister misappropriated Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
PM Lee is claiming aggravated damages, asserting malicious intent in Mr Ngerng's publication of the article on May 15 last year on his blog The Heart Truths.
Mr Ngerng turned up in court at around 9.30am, clad in a black blazer and casual grey pants with a bright pink suitcase in tow. He told The Straits Times the suitcase contained all his documents. His entire family was also present.
PM Lee is understood to have arrived shortly after Mr Ngerng.
Representing himself, Mr Ngerng also apologised to PM Lee in his opening statement to the court. "I'm glad I can meet you in person for the first time and I do apologise for any defamatory things that I might have said," he said.
In the May 15 post, Mr Ngerng juxtaposed a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, against his own chart of the purported ties between the CPF and PM Lee and sovereign wealth fund GIC.
Six current and former CHC leaders are facing prosecution for the alleged misuse of $50 million in church funds.
Justice Lee noted the case "has come to be associated with the criminal misappropriation of funds in the mind of any ordinary, reasonable person". He also noted that, in Mr Ngerng's post, "the allegation that 'money is being misappropriated' is unconditional and unequivocal".
It contains as well an implicit comparison between the lack of information given to auditors in the CHC case, and the lack of transparency with regard to CPF monies, added Justice Lee. This, he said, carries the implication that Mr Lee is reluctant to be transparent about the finances of the Government and GIC "because he wants to conceal the evidence of the criminal misappropriation".
In issuing a summary judgment - which means giving a ruling without the case going to trial because the court agrees with the applicant that the defence arguments are baseless - Justice Lee had said he could not accept Mr Ngerng's only defence that the lawsuit was unconstitutional.
He also ruled that Mr Ngerng cannot republish the allegation of criminal misappropriation, but his freedom of speech would not be curtailed.
The blogger has continued to blog about the CPF issue.
Last month, he made an attempt in the High Court to engage Queen's Counsel (QC) Heather Rogers to argue his case at the hearing on damages.
But it was dismissed by Justice Steven Chong, who said that although QC Rogers is eminent in the field of defamation law in the United Kingdom, she does not have special qualifications or experience to argue Mr Ngerng's case here as it is "local-centric".
Also, the case at the damages stage was not complex enough to require even a local Senior Counsel - let alone a QC - and that Mr Ngerng had thus far been "content" with being represented by local lawyers who are not Senior Counsel, he noted.
This was so, even during the hearing to determine liability, which is "more complex" in nature, said Justice Chong.
He ordered Mr Ngerng to pay $6,000 to PM Lee for legal fees he incurred in the blogger's unsuccessful bid.
This is on top of the $29,000 in legal fees and related expenses the blogger paid PM Lee on Feb 6.
SINGAPORE - The three-day hearing to assess the amount of damages blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation began on Wednesday (July 1) morning in the High Court.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin had ruled last November that Mr Ngerng, 34, defamed PM Lee by suggesting the Prime Minister misappropriated Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
PM Lee is claiming aggravated damages, asserting malicious intent in Mr Ngerng's publication of the article on May 15 last year on his blog The Heart Truths.
Mr Ngerng turned up in court at around 9.30am, clad in a black blazer and casual grey pants with a bright pink suitcase in tow. He told The Straits Times the suitcase contained all his documents. His entire family was also present.
PM Lee is understood to have arrived shortly after Mr Ngerng.
Representing himself, Mr Ngerng also apologised to PM Lee in his opening statement to the court. "I'm glad I can meet you in person for the first time and I do apologise for any defamatory things that I might have said," he said.
In the May 15 post, Mr Ngerng juxtaposed a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, against his own chart of the purported ties between the CPF and PM Lee and sovereign wealth fund GIC.
Six current and former CHC leaders are facing prosecution for the alleged misuse of $50 million in church funds.
Justice Lee noted the case "has come to be associated with the criminal misappropriation of funds in the mind of any ordinary, reasonable person". He also noted that, in Mr Ngerng's post, "the allegation that 'money is being misappropriated' is unconditional and unequivocal".
It contains as well an implicit comparison between the lack of information given to auditors in the CHC case, and the lack of transparency with regard to CPF monies, added Justice Lee. This, he said, carries the implication that Mr Lee is reluctant to be transparent about the finances of the Government and GIC "because he wants to conceal the evidence of the criminal misappropriation".
In issuing a summary judgment - which means giving a ruling without the case going to trial because the court agrees with the applicant that the defence arguments are baseless - Justice Lee had said he could not accept Mr Ngerng's only defence that the lawsuit was unconstitutional.
He also ruled that Mr Ngerng cannot republish the allegation of criminal misappropriation, but his freedom of speech would not be curtailed.
The blogger has continued to blog about the CPF issue.
Last month, he made an attempt in the High Court to engage Queen's Counsel (QC) Heather Rogers to argue his case at the hearing on damages.
But it was dismissed by Justice Steven Chong, who said that although QC Rogers is eminent in the field of defamation law in the United Kingdom, she does not have special qualifications or experience to argue Mr Ngerng's case here as it is "local-centric".
Also, the case at the damages stage was not complex enough to require even a local Senior Counsel - let alone a QC - and that Mr Ngerng had thus far been "content" with being represented by local lawyers who are not Senior Counsel, he noted.
This was so, even during the hearing to determine liability, which is "more complex" in nature, said Justice Chong.
He ordered Mr Ngerng to pay $6,000 to PM Lee for legal fees he incurred in the blogger's unsuccessful bid.
This is on top of the $29,000 in legal fees and related expenses the blogger paid PM Lee on Feb 6.
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
/
/
Tomorrow ( 1st July ) , My Hearing with the Singapore Prime Minister
Begins for the Defamation Suit.
=============================================
Hello everyone, I will be busy with my defamation suit for the next 3 days.
I will be at the hearing with the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, to decide how much I have to pay him.
(The prime minister has filed for the defamation suit in the High Court which oversees cases of more than S$250,000.)
The hearing will be held from 1 to 3 July, from Wednesday to Friday, from 10am everyday at Court 4D. It will be an open trial.
I won’t be able to post as many updates on Amos Yee due to this.
Do keep up with the advocacy.
There will be an event of solidarity for Amos tomorrow in Penang in Malaysia.
Earlier today, the people in Hong Kong held a protest outside the Consulate-General of the Republic of Singapore, and last Friday, the Taiwanese also did it outside the Singapore Trade office in Taipei.
They have submitted their protest to the official government overseas missions.
We must continue to speak up against the wrongful persecution of Amos Yee.
He has to be released.
And we must continue to speak up so that the citizens of Singapore can be protected.
Today, Singaporeans earn one of the lowest wages among the highest-income countries while the ministers earn the highest salaries in the world.
Yet, the Singapore government also spends the least on healthcare, education and social protection on Singaporeans among the developed countries, as a percentage of GDP.
The government also takes the CPF pension funds of Singaporeans to earn in the two government investment firms, GIC and Temasek Holdings.
But where the GIC and Temasek Holdings have become among the 11 richest sovereign wealth funds in the world on the back of Singaporeans’ pension funds, Singaporeans’ own pension funds have instead become one of the least adequate in the world.
So much so that Singaporeans have to pay the most in the world, for out-of-pocket expenditure for healthcare and for university tuition fees and it is estimated that 30% of Singaporeans are living in poverty today.
It is wrong that our elderly Singaporeans are unable to retire today, because they have not been paid enough in wages, and are not given back the returns on their pension funds.
It is wrong that low- and lower middle-income Singaporeans are unable to make ends meet today, because the government refuses to implement a minimum wage to increase their wages and allow them to have enough to use.
It is wrong that our children are unfairly persecuted just for criticising a man whom the government is trying to protect.
It is wrong when our children and ordinary citizens are being persecuted when those close to the ruling party are allowed to go scot-free.
We cannot allow such abuse of power to continue, to threaten the very lives of the citizens.
We cannot allow such unfairness and inequality to persist in our society.
We have to fight back and take a stand.
RN
/
/
Tomorrow ( 1st July ) , My Hearing with the Singapore Prime Minister
Begins for the Defamation Suit.
=============================================
Hello everyone, I will be busy with my defamation suit for the next 3 days.
I will be at the hearing with the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, to decide how much I have to pay him.
(The prime minister has filed for the defamation suit in the High Court which oversees cases of more than S$250,000.)
The hearing will be held from 1 to 3 July, from Wednesday to Friday, from 10am everyday at Court 4D. It will be an open trial.
I won’t be able to post as many updates on Amos Yee due to this.
Do keep up with the advocacy.
There will be an event of solidarity for Amos tomorrow in Penang in Malaysia.
Earlier today, the people in Hong Kong held a protest outside the Consulate-General of the Republic of Singapore, and last Friday, the Taiwanese also did it outside the Singapore Trade office in Taipei.
They have submitted their protest to the official government overseas missions.
We must continue to speak up against the wrongful persecution of Amos Yee.
He has to be released.
And we must continue to speak up so that the citizens of Singapore can be protected.
Today, Singaporeans earn one of the lowest wages among the highest-income countries while the ministers earn the highest salaries in the world.
Yet, the Singapore government also spends the least on healthcare, education and social protection on Singaporeans among the developed countries, as a percentage of GDP.
The government also takes the CPF pension funds of Singaporeans to earn in the two government investment firms, GIC and Temasek Holdings.
But where the GIC and Temasek Holdings have become among the 11 richest sovereign wealth funds in the world on the back of Singaporeans’ pension funds, Singaporeans’ own pension funds have instead become one of the least adequate in the world.
So much so that Singaporeans have to pay the most in the world, for out-of-pocket expenditure for healthcare and for university tuition fees and it is estimated that 30% of Singaporeans are living in poverty today.
It is wrong that our elderly Singaporeans are unable to retire today, because they have not been paid enough in wages, and are not given back the returns on their pension funds.
It is wrong that low- and lower middle-income Singaporeans are unable to make ends meet today, because the government refuses to implement a minimum wage to increase their wages and allow them to have enough to use.
It is wrong that our children are unfairly persecuted just for criticising a man whom the government is trying to protect.
It is wrong when our children and ordinary citizens are being persecuted when those close to the ruling party are allowed to go scot-free.
We cannot allow such abuse of power to continue, to threaten the very lives of the citizens.
We cannot allow such unfairness and inequality to persist in our society.
We have to fight back and take a stand.
RN
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
/
Hello everyone, I will be busy with my defamation suit for the next 3 days.
I will be at the hearing with the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, to decide how much I have to pay him.
(The prime minister has filed for the defamation suit in the High Court which oversees cases of more than S$250,000.)
The hearing will be held from 1 to 3 July, from Wednesday to Friday, from 10am everyday at Court 4D. It will be an open trial.
going from past cases Kopi Ah Peks said RN will be hit at least S$500,000/-
/
Hello everyone, I will be busy with my defamation suit for the next 3 days.
I will be at the hearing with the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, to decide how much I have to pay him.
(The prime minister has filed for the defamation suit in the High Court which oversees cases of more than S$250,000.)
The hearing will be held from 1 to 3 July, from Wednesday to Friday, from 10am everyday at Court 4D. It will be an open trial.
going from past cases Kopi Ah Peks said RN will be hit at least S$500,000/-
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
Still no international sanctions because of this...so life goes on.
Still no international sanctions because of this...so life goes on.
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
/
In court: Roy Ngerng to hear assessment of damages paid to PM Lee
The blogger attended Singapore’s highest court on Wednesday (Jul 1)
to hear an assessment of damages he has to pay to Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong,
after he was found to have defamed Mr Lee.
======================================================
By Kyle Malinda
POSTED: 01 Jul 2015 08:41 UPDATED: 01 Jul 2015 15:53
SINGAPORE: "I am sorry. I had no intent to defame you", defendant Roy Ngerng Yi Ling told plaintiff Lee Hsien Loong in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jul 1), at the start of a three-day hearing to assess damages the blogger has to pay after he was found to have defamed the Prime Minster.
But the apology was "not sincere", said Mr Lee. "The record contradicts that," he added, citing recent blogposts by Mr Ngerng.
When Mr Ngerng questioned the Prime Minister on whether the facts cited in the offending blogpost were true, Mr Lee answered: "The quotes are factual but the article on your blog is not."
"We're not here to play games. There's no point going through it again other than to aggravate damages," Mr Lee said when Mr Ngerng went through the blogpost in question.
However, Supreme Court Justice Lee Seiu Kin permitted the line of questioning, allowing Mr Ngerng's bid to prove that he did not display malice with the blogpost – a factor that the court said could be aggravating in deciding costs for damages. Mr Ngerng later explained that his intent to clarify the facts does not negate the defamatory effect his blogpost had.
OFFER TO SETTLE REJECTED
The court heard that on May 30, Mr Ngerng had offered to settle the damages for a sum of S$10,000. However, this was rejected by PM Lee as "derisory", due to a series of posts the blogger had published recently claiming he was being persecuted by Mr Lee and the Singapore judiciary.
Mr Ngerng later said it was the best he could offer given his financial situation, which Justice Lee acknowledged. However, PM Lee said that for Mr Ngerng to cast doubt on the judicial system meant the blogger was "not serious" about his apology.
"From the very first, the defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech," said lawyers acting on behalf on Mr Lee in their opening statement.
"He would say one thing but do another: He publicly apologised for the libel but he continued to defame the plaintff; he undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise; and he claims that he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but he continues to aggravate this injury."
Mr Ngerng had also invited Mr Lee to a dialogue following his blog posts, but the Prime Minister rejected the offer.
"After defamation has been committed, I don't think my answer is to have an open dialogue," said PM Lee. "In my view, I want the courts to settle the matter."
Mr Ngerng was unrepresented in court on Wednesday.
DETERMINING DAMAGES
In November 2014, Justice Lee issued a summary judgment that Mr Ngerng's posts on his blog The Heart Truths were considered to have given the impression that Mr Lee was misappropriating Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies.
In the opening statement, Mr Lee's lawyers from Drew & Napier said: "Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff's ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC. The defendant's allegations, unless challenged head-on, demolished in a court of law and met with a substantial award of damages, would seriously erode the plaintiff's reputation and moral authority."
The hearing was scheduled to assess the amount of damages to be paid by Mr Ngerng, after a summary judgment was filed by Mr Lee on Jul 11, 2014. A summary judgment is one that is issued without going to trial, as the judge agrees with the applicant that the defence has no grounds to support his or her case.
Mr Lee's lawyers called for "a very high award of damages", on account of Mr Ngerng's "malice and continuing attacks".
Previous awards in defamation cases involving top Government ministers in Singapore have ranged from S$100,000 to S$400,000, the lawyers noted, suggesting that a higher quantum should be awarded in this case.
"The court has consistently awarded substantial damages in cases where false allegations of criminal conduct were made in the office of Prime Minister," said Mr Lee's lawyers in their opening statement.
"The plaintiff respectfully asks that the court expresses, in the strongest terms, its indignation at the defendant's conduct. The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling."
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS DEFAMATION LAWS
Justice Lee had previously noted that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is restricted by defamation laws, citing earlier cases in a similar vein, such as in the legal disputes between late opposition politician Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Ngerng was ordered to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses that were borne leading up to the application for the summary judgment.
The Prime Minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin had earlier told media that Mr Lee "stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the court".
The blogger, a former healthcare programme coordinator at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, had written a blogpost last May comparing the Prime Minister's usage of CPF monies to the City Harvest Church leaders' alleged misuse of church funds. In his blog, he charged that Mr Lee did so via the Government’s investment arms, Temasek Holdings and GIC.
Mr Ngerng was ordered by the court to no longer publish any assertions that Mr Lee was misappropriating CPF monies. The blogger later wrote in a blogpost that although the injunction was in place, he would continue to speak up for CPF and other issues.
The blogger's application for a Queen's Counsel to take on his case was also rejected by the High Court on Jun 11, after Justice Steven Chong said that the appointed QC had no expertise in Singapore-specific defamation issues. Mr Ngerng was ordered to pay costs of S$6,000 for the dismissed application.
- CNA/cy
/
In court: Roy Ngerng to hear assessment of damages paid to PM Lee
The blogger attended Singapore’s highest court on Wednesday (Jul 1)
to hear an assessment of damages he has to pay to Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong,
after he was found to have defamed Mr Lee.
======================================================
By Kyle Malinda
POSTED: 01 Jul 2015 08:41 UPDATED: 01 Jul 2015 15:53
SINGAPORE: "I am sorry. I had no intent to defame you", defendant Roy Ngerng Yi Ling told plaintiff Lee Hsien Loong in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jul 1), at the start of a three-day hearing to assess damages the blogger has to pay after he was found to have defamed the Prime Minster.
But the apology was "not sincere", said Mr Lee. "The record contradicts that," he added, citing recent blogposts by Mr Ngerng.
When Mr Ngerng questioned the Prime Minister on whether the facts cited in the offending blogpost were true, Mr Lee answered: "The quotes are factual but the article on your blog is not."
"We're not here to play games. There's no point going through it again other than to aggravate damages," Mr Lee said when Mr Ngerng went through the blogpost in question.
However, Supreme Court Justice Lee Seiu Kin permitted the line of questioning, allowing Mr Ngerng's bid to prove that he did not display malice with the blogpost – a factor that the court said could be aggravating in deciding costs for damages. Mr Ngerng later explained that his intent to clarify the facts does not negate the defamatory effect his blogpost had.
OFFER TO SETTLE REJECTED
The court heard that on May 30, Mr Ngerng had offered to settle the damages for a sum of S$10,000. However, this was rejected by PM Lee as "derisory", due to a series of posts the blogger had published recently claiming he was being persecuted by Mr Lee and the Singapore judiciary.
Mr Ngerng later said it was the best he could offer given his financial situation, which Justice Lee acknowledged. However, PM Lee said that for Mr Ngerng to cast doubt on the judicial system meant the blogger was "not serious" about his apology.
"From the very first, the defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech," said lawyers acting on behalf on Mr Lee in their opening statement.
"He would say one thing but do another: He publicly apologised for the libel but he continued to defame the plaintff; he undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise; and he claims that he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but he continues to aggravate this injury."
Mr Ngerng had also invited Mr Lee to a dialogue following his blog posts, but the Prime Minister rejected the offer.
"After defamation has been committed, I don't think my answer is to have an open dialogue," said PM Lee. "In my view, I want the courts to settle the matter."
Mr Ngerng was unrepresented in court on Wednesday.
DETERMINING DAMAGES
In November 2014, Justice Lee issued a summary judgment that Mr Ngerng's posts on his blog The Heart Truths were considered to have given the impression that Mr Lee was misappropriating Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies.
In the opening statement, Mr Lee's lawyers from Drew & Napier said: "Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff's ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC. The defendant's allegations, unless challenged head-on, demolished in a court of law and met with a substantial award of damages, would seriously erode the plaintiff's reputation and moral authority."
The hearing was scheduled to assess the amount of damages to be paid by Mr Ngerng, after a summary judgment was filed by Mr Lee on Jul 11, 2014. A summary judgment is one that is issued without going to trial, as the judge agrees with the applicant that the defence has no grounds to support his or her case.
Mr Lee's lawyers called for "a very high award of damages", on account of Mr Ngerng's "malice and continuing attacks".
Previous awards in defamation cases involving top Government ministers in Singapore have ranged from S$100,000 to S$400,000, the lawyers noted, suggesting that a higher quantum should be awarded in this case.
"The court has consistently awarded substantial damages in cases where false allegations of criminal conduct were made in the office of Prime Minister," said Mr Lee's lawyers in their opening statement.
"The plaintiff respectfully asks that the court expresses, in the strongest terms, its indignation at the defendant's conduct. The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling."
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS DEFAMATION LAWS
Justice Lee had previously noted that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is restricted by defamation laws, citing earlier cases in a similar vein, such as in the legal disputes between late opposition politician Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Ngerng was ordered to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses that were borne leading up to the application for the summary judgment.
The Prime Minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin had earlier told media that Mr Lee "stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the court".
The blogger, a former healthcare programme coordinator at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, had written a blogpost last May comparing the Prime Minister's usage of CPF monies to the City Harvest Church leaders' alleged misuse of church funds. In his blog, he charged that Mr Lee did so via the Government’s investment arms, Temasek Holdings and GIC.
Mr Ngerng was ordered by the court to no longer publish any assertions that Mr Lee was misappropriating CPF monies. The blogger later wrote in a blogpost that although the injunction was in place, he would continue to speak up for CPF and other issues.
The blogger's application for a Queen's Counsel to take on his case was also rejected by the High Court on Jun 11, after Justice Steven Chong said that the appointed QC had no expertise in Singapore-specific defamation issues. Mr Ngerng was ordered to pay costs of S$6,000 for the dismissed application.
- CNA/cy
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
/
938LIVE
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arrives for the first day of hearing in the High Court to determine the amount of damages payable to him by blogger Roy Ngerng. Ngerng, who had suggested that Mr Lee had misappropriated CPF funds in a blog post published in May last year, was ruled to have defamed Mr Lee last November.
(Video by Lee Gim Siong)
https://www.facebook.com/Official938LIVE/videos/976808862375725/
/
938LIVE
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arrives for the first day of hearing in the High Court to determine the amount of damages payable to him by blogger Roy Ngerng. Ngerng, who had suggested that Mr Lee had misappropriated CPF funds in a blog post published in May last year, was ruled to have defamed Mr Lee last November.
(Video by Lee Gim Siong)
https://www.facebook.com/Official938LIVE/videos/976808862375725/
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
Mr Lee's lawyers noted that previous awards in defamation cases involving top government ministers ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, and argued that a higher quantum should be awarded in this case given, among others, the extensive republication of the libel, Mr Ngerng's egregious conduct, and his malice and continuing attacks against Mr Lee.
"From the very first, the defendant set out to wound," PM Lee's lawyers said of Mr Ngerng and his initial blog post.
"He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech."
In the process, Mr Ngerng has misled Singaporeans, Mr Lee and even his own lawyers, by apologising and taking down the defamatory statements, then posting them online again, the statement said.
He undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise, and claims he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but continues to aggravate the injury, it added.
In his post, Mr Ngerng juxtaposed a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, against his own chart of the purported ties between the CPF and PM Lee and sovereign wealth fund GIC.
Six current and former CHC leaders are facing prosecution for the alleged misuse of $50 million in church funds.
After receiving a letter of demand, Mr Ngerng had removed the blog and posted an apology. But he later sent the blog post to the media and repeated his defamatory allegations in other online articles and interviews.
Said Mr Lee's lawyers: "This case stands out for the depth and intensity of the defendant's malice toward the plaintiff and his resolve to damage the plaintiff's reputation."
The lawyers cited previous defamation cases to argue that allegations of corruption and criminal conduct "are grave charges", especially if made against the Prime Minister of a country.
They further said that Mr Lee's "life, reputation and ability to lead Singaporeans and GIC are all founded on his unflinching fidelity to integrity".
"It is therefore an extremely serious matter for the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of criminally misappropriating the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF," they said.
"Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff's ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and to discharge his functions as Prime Minister and chairman of GIC."
In addition to making the defamatory statements, Mr Ngerng had sought to rally people to his cause, by promising to speak the truth and to speak up for them, the lawyers added.
He had also jumped at the opportunity to use the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself, and advance his political agenda, they said.
For instance, Mr Ngerng had posted on his blog the entire letter of demand sent to him by Mr Lee's lawyers, to attract more attention, the lawyers said. This was despite knowing that the letter had described the offending words and images he was asked to take down.
The lawyers said: "If the defendant's actions have proved anything, it is that he harbours a deep seated hatred of the plaintiff. That is the only explanation for the venom in his continuing attacks and his relentless aggravation."
They urged the court to "express, in strongest terms, its indignation" at Mr Ngerng's conduct.
"The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling," they added
Mr Lee's lawyers noted that previous awards in defamation cases involving top government ministers ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, and argued that a higher quantum should be awarded in this case given, among others, the extensive republication of the libel, Mr Ngerng's egregious conduct, and his malice and continuing attacks against Mr Lee.
"From the very first, the defendant set out to wound," PM Lee's lawyers said of Mr Ngerng and his initial blog post.
"He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech."
In the process, Mr Ngerng has misled Singaporeans, Mr Lee and even his own lawyers, by apologising and taking down the defamatory statements, then posting them online again, the statement said.
He undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise, and claims he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but continues to aggravate the injury, it added.
In his post, Mr Ngerng juxtaposed a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, against his own chart of the purported ties between the CPF and PM Lee and sovereign wealth fund GIC.
Six current and former CHC leaders are facing prosecution for the alleged misuse of $50 million in church funds.
After receiving a letter of demand, Mr Ngerng had removed the blog and posted an apology. But he later sent the blog post to the media and repeated his defamatory allegations in other online articles and interviews.
Said Mr Lee's lawyers: "This case stands out for the depth and intensity of the defendant's malice toward the plaintiff and his resolve to damage the plaintiff's reputation."
The lawyers cited previous defamation cases to argue that allegations of corruption and criminal conduct "are grave charges", especially if made against the Prime Minister of a country.
They further said that Mr Lee's "life, reputation and ability to lead Singaporeans and GIC are all founded on his unflinching fidelity to integrity".
"It is therefore an extremely serious matter for the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of criminally misappropriating the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF," they said.
"Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff's ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and to discharge his functions as Prime Minister and chairman of GIC."
In addition to making the defamatory statements, Mr Ngerng had sought to rally people to his cause, by promising to speak the truth and to speak up for them, the lawyers added.
He had also jumped at the opportunity to use the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself, and advance his political agenda, they said.
For instance, Mr Ngerng had posted on his blog the entire letter of demand sent to him by Mr Lee's lawyers, to attract more attention, the lawyers said. This was despite knowing that the letter had described the offending words and images he was asked to take down.
The lawyers said: "If the defendant's actions have proved anything, it is that he harbours a deep seated hatred of the plaintiff. That is the only explanation for the venom in his continuing attacks and his relentless aggravation."
They urged the court to "express, in strongest terms, its indignation" at Mr Ngerng's conduct.
"The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling," they added
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
July 1st, 2015 | Author: Editorial
PM Lee arriving at the Supreme Court on Jul 1. (Photo: TODAY)
PM Lee arrives for the first day of hearing in the High Court this morning (1 Jul) to determine the amount of damages payable to him by blogger Roy Ngerng.
Roy, representing himself, apologised to PM Lee in his opening statement to the court. Roy said, “I’m glad I can meet you (PM Lee) in person for the first time and I do apologise for any defamatory things that I might have said.”
“When I wrote the article, there was no intent to defame you. I apologise that it has been looked upon as that,” Roy added. His entire family was present in court.
Last November, the High Court has allowed summary judgement entered against Roy in the defamation suit filed by PM Lee. He was sued by Mr Lee in his personal capacity for a series of articles which had accused Mr Lee of “criminal misappropriation” of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. Mr Lee’s lawyers had said that by comparing the management of CPF monies by the GIC with the corruption trial of leaders of the City Harvest Church, Roy was deemed to have defamed Mr Lee. Mr Lee is currently the Chairman of GIC.
The summary judgement was filed by Mr Lee’s lawyers last July, arguing that Roy has accepted and admitted to defaming Mr Lee in his earlier apology, and thus Roy has no defence to Mr Lee’s claims.
For the next 3 days, both sides will argue in court to determine the amount of damages payable to Mr Lee. Mr Lee is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Drew and Napier while Roy is defending himself.
Mr M Ravi, Roy’s previous lawyer, has been suspended from practising law by the Law Society since Feb, following concerns about his mental health.
“We’re not here to play games”
In court, Mr Lee said that Roy’s apology was “not sincere”. “The record contradicts that,” he added, citing recent blog posts by Roy.
When Roy questioned Mr Lee on whether the facts cited in the offending blogpost were true, Mr Lee answered, “The quotes are factual but the article on your blog is not.”
“We’re not here to play games. There’s no point going through it again other than to aggravate damages,” Mr Lee said when Roy tried to go through the blogpost in question.
However, Supreme Court Justice Lee Seiu Kin permitted the line of questioning, allowing Roy’s bid to prove that he did not display malice with the blogpost – a factor that the court said could be aggravating in deciding costs for damages.
Roy later explained that his intent to clarify the facts does not negate the defamatory effect his blogpost had.
The court also heard that on May 30 last year, Roy had indeed offered to settle the damages for a sum of $10,000. However, this was rejected by Mr Lee as “derisory”. Roy later said it was the best he could offer given his financial situation, which Justice Lee acknowledged. However, Mr Lee said that for Roy to cast doubt on the judicial system meant the blogger was “not serious” about his apology.
PM Lee wants “a very high award of damages”
Representing Mr Lee, Drew and Napier’s lawyers in their opening statement, said, “From the very first, the defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech.”
“He would say one thing but do another: He publicly apologised for the libel but he continued to defame the plaintff; he undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise; and he claims that he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but he continues to aggravate this injury,” Mr Lee’s lawyers added.
Mr Lee’s lawyers also said, “Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff’s ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC. The defendant’s allegations, unless challenged head-on, demolished in a court of law and met with a substantial award of damages, would seriously erode the plaintiff’s reputation and moral authority.”
Mr Lee’s lawyers called for “a very high award of damages”, on account of Roy’s “malice and continuing attacks”. The lawyers noted that previous awards in defamation cases involving government ministers have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000. They suggested that a higher quantum should be awarded in the present case.
“The court has consistently awarded substantial damages in cases where false allegations of criminal conduct were made in the office of Prime Minister,” said Mr Lee’s lawyers.
“The plaintiff respectfully asks that the court expresses, in the strongest terms, its indignation at the defendant’s conduct. The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling.”
July 1st, 2015 | Author: Editorial
PM Lee arriving at the Supreme Court on Jul 1. (Photo: TODAY)
PM Lee arrives for the first day of hearing in the High Court this morning (1 Jul) to determine the amount of damages payable to him by blogger Roy Ngerng.
Roy, representing himself, apologised to PM Lee in his opening statement to the court. Roy said, “I’m glad I can meet you (PM Lee) in person for the first time and I do apologise for any defamatory things that I might have said.”
“When I wrote the article, there was no intent to defame you. I apologise that it has been looked upon as that,” Roy added. His entire family was present in court.
Last November, the High Court has allowed summary judgement entered against Roy in the defamation suit filed by PM Lee. He was sued by Mr Lee in his personal capacity for a series of articles which had accused Mr Lee of “criminal misappropriation” of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. Mr Lee’s lawyers had said that by comparing the management of CPF monies by the GIC with the corruption trial of leaders of the City Harvest Church, Roy was deemed to have defamed Mr Lee. Mr Lee is currently the Chairman of GIC.
The summary judgement was filed by Mr Lee’s lawyers last July, arguing that Roy has accepted and admitted to defaming Mr Lee in his earlier apology, and thus Roy has no defence to Mr Lee’s claims.
For the next 3 days, both sides will argue in court to determine the amount of damages payable to Mr Lee. Mr Lee is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Drew and Napier while Roy is defending himself.
Mr M Ravi, Roy’s previous lawyer, has been suspended from practising law by the Law Society since Feb, following concerns about his mental health.
“We’re not here to play games”
In court, Mr Lee said that Roy’s apology was “not sincere”. “The record contradicts that,” he added, citing recent blog posts by Roy.
When Roy questioned Mr Lee on whether the facts cited in the offending blogpost were true, Mr Lee answered, “The quotes are factual but the article on your blog is not.”
“We’re not here to play games. There’s no point going through it again other than to aggravate damages,” Mr Lee said when Roy tried to go through the blogpost in question.
However, Supreme Court Justice Lee Seiu Kin permitted the line of questioning, allowing Roy’s bid to prove that he did not display malice with the blogpost – a factor that the court said could be aggravating in deciding costs for damages.
Roy later explained that his intent to clarify the facts does not negate the defamatory effect his blogpost had.
The court also heard that on May 30 last year, Roy had indeed offered to settle the damages for a sum of $10,000. However, this was rejected by Mr Lee as “derisory”. Roy later said it was the best he could offer given his financial situation, which Justice Lee acknowledged. However, Mr Lee said that for Roy to cast doubt on the judicial system meant the blogger was “not serious” about his apology.
PM Lee wants “a very high award of damages”
Representing Mr Lee, Drew and Napier’s lawyers in their opening statement, said, “From the very first, the defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel against the plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech.”
“He would say one thing but do another: He publicly apologised for the libel but he continued to defame the plaintff; he undertook not to repeat the libel but broke his promise; and he claims that he is sincere about wanting to resolve matters but he continues to aggravate this injury,” Mr Lee’s lawyers added.
Mr Lee’s lawyers also said, “Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff’s ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC. The defendant’s allegations, unless challenged head-on, demolished in a court of law and met with a substantial award of damages, would seriously erode the plaintiff’s reputation and moral authority.”
Mr Lee’s lawyers called for “a very high award of damages”, on account of Roy’s “malice and continuing attacks”. The lawyers noted that previous awards in defamation cases involving government ministers have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000. They suggested that a higher quantum should be awarded in the present case.
“The court has consistently awarded substantial damages in cases where false allegations of criminal conduct were made in the office of Prime Minister,” said Mr Lee’s lawyers.
“The plaintiff respectfully asks that the court expresses, in the strongest terms, its indignation at the defendant’s conduct. The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling.”
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
Just gve him 3 billion will do.
Just gve him 3 billion will do.
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
What has sinkieland becomes... A prime minister who should be serving the people is now appearing in court to sue the citizen that he should be serving.. What a fucking sinkie disgrace.!!!!
What has sinkieland becomes... A prime minister who should be serving the people is now appearing in court to sue the citizen that he should be serving.. What a fucking sinkie disgrace.!!!!
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
Using Chong's argument, there will never be a need for QC as long as an issue has something to do with sinkapore. And we think highly of our judges.
Using Chong's argument, there will never be a need for QC as long as an issue has something to do with sinkapore. And we think highly of our judges.
Only in sinkapore and malaysia courts that they control who can represent you. Our laws cannot survive the angmo scrutiny, that's the reason for the protection.
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
That's our prime minister. Toss him out of office.
The dictator that persecutes a 16-year old and wants it ALL.
That's our prime minister. Toss him out of office.
The dictator that persecutes a 16-year old and wants it ALL.
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge
Ya and he comes in a top model Lexus asking for money wahahahahahaha fucking gay loong!
Ya and he comes in a top model Lexus asking for money wahahahahahaha fucking gay loong!
Similar threads
