http://www.channelnewsasia.com/mobile/singapore/pm-lee-asks-for-very-high/1952476.html
News
Singapore
PM Lee asks for 'very high award of damages' in defamation case against Roy Ngerng
By Kyle Malinda
POSTED: 01 Jul 2015 08:41 **UPDATED: 01 Jul 2015 23:32
A
A
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.
"I'm so sincere, I've apologised to you so many times that I've lost count," Mr Ngerng added, saying that he had sent his apologies about seven to eight times.
But the apology was "not sincere", said Mr Lee. "The record contradicts that," he added, citing recent blog posts by Mr Ngerng. PM Lee also said that Mr Ngerng did not have "wholehearted acceptance of judgement", as the blogger had accepted the ruling, but insisted he did not intend to defame.
"All*I wanted was one apology and a follow-through. You went on to do other things. Your conduct shows that you have no intention of closing the matter properly," said PM Lee, who took the stand for about six hours for cross-examination by Mr Ngerng.
The blogger was unrepresented in court on Wednesday, having discharged his lawyer last week. When he questioned the Prime Minister on whether the facts cited in the offending blog post 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 blog post 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."
The Prime Minister also pointed out that even though Mr Ngerng published an apology, he acted inconsistently by publishing a YouTube video saying he*was “disappointed that the Prime Minister has chosen to use the law against an ordinary citizen like [him] who believe[d] in speaking up for what is right in Singapore”. This was his way of implying that the defamatory allegation was “the truth”, Mr Lee said.
The Prime Minister stated that he had conveyed to Mr Ngerng that he would not claim aggravated damages if he removed the YouTube video, but instead of doing so, the blogger turned its settings to "private" and made it available to some people. Even after his apologies, he also emailed members of the local and international media to point out where they could read about the libel.
Mr Ngerng had 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 Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the Supreme Court on Jul 1. (Photo: TODAY)
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.
The hearing on Wednesday was adjourned till 10am on Thursday. Speaking to the media after the day's proceedings wrapped, Mr Ngerng said to the media:*"I accept the judgment that the statement was defamatory. On hindsight I would not make the same statement".
- CNA/cy
News
Singapore
PM Lee asks for 'very high award of damages' in defamation case against Roy Ngerng
By Kyle Malinda
POSTED: 01 Jul 2015 08:41 **UPDATED: 01 Jul 2015 23:32
A
A
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.
"I'm so sincere, I've apologised to you so many times that I've lost count," Mr Ngerng added, saying that he had sent his apologies about seven to eight times.
But the apology was "not sincere", said Mr Lee. "The record contradicts that," he added, citing recent blog posts by Mr Ngerng. PM Lee also said that Mr Ngerng did not have "wholehearted acceptance of judgement", as the blogger had accepted the ruling, but insisted he did not intend to defame.
"All*I wanted was one apology and a follow-through. You went on to do other things. Your conduct shows that you have no intention of closing the matter properly," said PM Lee, who took the stand for about six hours for cross-examination by Mr Ngerng.
The blogger was unrepresented in court on Wednesday, having discharged his lawyer last week. When he questioned the Prime Minister on whether the facts cited in the offending blog post 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 blog post 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."
The Prime Minister also pointed out that even though Mr Ngerng published an apology, he acted inconsistently by publishing a YouTube video saying he*was “disappointed that the Prime Minister has chosen to use the law against an ordinary citizen like [him] who believe[d] in speaking up for what is right in Singapore”. This was his way of implying that the defamatory allegation was “the truth”, Mr Lee said.
The Prime Minister stated that he had conveyed to Mr Ngerng that he would not claim aggravated damages if he removed the YouTube video, but instead of doing so, the blogger turned its settings to "private" and made it available to some people. Even after his apologies, he also emailed members of the local and international media to point out where they could read about the libel.
Mr Ngerng had 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 Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the Supreme Court on Jul 1. (Photo: TODAY)
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.
The hearing on Wednesday was adjourned till 10am on Thursday. Speaking to the media after the day's proceedings wrapped, Mr Ngerng said to the media:*"I accept the judgment that the statement was defamatory. On hindsight I would not make the same statement".
- CNA/cy
