• 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

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

I nearly wept for our PM Lee today. I read his account in court and I could feel the pain he felt when Roy maliciously defamed him, and later on was prancing around aggravating the situation instead of genuinely making amends.

I forgot ...PAP goons are very good at crying ...do always carry an IV pack so that you will never run of tears?
 

eErotica69

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
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.!!!!

Serve your mother chee bye. UMNO and MIC have.been self servicing your mother's phua chee bye all these years.
 

eErotica69

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

See what sinkies vote for? They vote a govt who sue their own citizen.

So are you voting against them or protesting outside Istana?

No? Why? Ball-less?

Dogs and banglas fuck your mother's old loose crumpled smelly chee bye.
 

blissquek

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

Should ask him to play Deal Or No Deal. Pick a briefcase and open it to reveal the compensation value. :rolleyes:

On value...all I know is that with one Roy, we get back 20% of our CPF.

So we need another 4 Roys to get back our full CPF...
 

Leckmichamarsch

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

Lai Lai Court 4D...which numbers will come out ...Bet Big or small

I say winning amount... 1 million!...

Huat ah!

wud they dare award 10 mln bucks??? I dare them
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Ngerng​


/
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-07-02-13-54-20_1.jpg
    Screenshot_2015-07-02-13-54-20_1.jpg
    368.6 KB · Views: 461

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

The old man on his left is his Char Tow Kway seller father? And how many plates of char tow kway you need to sell to pay off the incoming DEBT?,

And the woman , one of his sister?

Bring traveling suit case for what? Cos after verdict, so can road road faster? LoLoLoLoLoL
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

The old man on his left is his Char Tow Kway seller father? And how many plates of char tow kway you need to sell to pay off the incoming DEBT?,

And the woman , one of his sister?

Bring traveling suit case for what? Cos after verdict, so can road road faster? LoLoLoLoLoL



Roy's Parents .



now just finished lunch breaks . Kopi Ah Peks said this time Roy sure finished.

market expecting Min. S$1,000,000.00 and Up .

Crowd Funding S$ , S$ also No use already ...
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

Roy's Parents .



now just finished lunch breaks . Kopi Ah Peks said this time Roy sure finished.

market expecting Min. S$1,000,000.00 and Up .

Crowd Funding S$ , S$ also No use already ...

Alamak, this type of son still want to show face ? But why bring traveling suit case, ready to run road?.

All of them 'chow law' before OA takes over their lives? LoLoLoLoLoL
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

Alamak, this type of son still want to show face ? But why bring traveling suit case, ready to run road?.

All of them 'chow law' before OA takes over their lives? LoLoLoLoLoL

The travelling case inside stuffed full with money.....
 

Wunderfool

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Ngerng​


/

One lugged a big RED suitcase full of documents. The other carried a small RED angpow.

Who is more prepared ?
 

Hans168

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

I forgot ...PAP goons are very good at crying ...do always carry an IV pack so that you will never run of tears?

I saw Lim Boon Heng cried over the TV..... did that ett him a golden job as chairman of Temasick?? Funny I dun remember his financial credentials................... how many days he got them from India or Southern Pacific YOU?
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

PM Lee Takes the Stand (2 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Ngerng
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-07-03-11-37-31_1.jpg
    Screenshot_2015-07-03-11-37-31_1.jpg
    372.2 KB · Views: 276

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

/
Interview with Blogger Roy Ngerng Sued by Singapore Prime Minister (by Joel Lazarus)​
 

SgGoneWrong

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

One lugged a big RED suitcase full of documents. The other carried a small RED angpow.

Who is more prepared ?

Gay sues gay, sibeh drama. Why can't they just embrace their sisterhood?
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

/


MARUAH’s Statement on Defamation Law and the Case Against Mr Roy Ngerng



MARUAH, a Human Rights Non-Governmental Organisation, objects to government leaders using the Defamation Law to institute defamation lawsuits against its critics, regardless of whether the offending statement is defamatory or not.

We make these remarks as the court assesses the damages that Mr Roy Ngerng has to pay for the remarks made against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In May 2014 Mr Ngerng, a blogger, was sued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, whom we assume is acting in his private capacity and not as the Prime Minister.

Mr Lee’s lawyers demanded that Mr Ngerng remove the article in question, issue an apology on his blog, and offer compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Ngerng acceded to all the demands, including removing four other articles, and made an offer of S$5,000 as compensation to Mr Lee.

Mr Lee’s lawyers, however, dismissed the amount as ‘derisory’, and commenced legal action on 30 May 2014. In January 2015, Mr Ngerng was ordered by the court to pay $29,000 to Mr Lee. Today (1 July 2015) the courts will decide on the damages that Mr Ngerng has to pay to Mr Lee Hsien Loong.


This was one of the few cases in Singapore where a defendant was found liable for defamation over an online article. Given the proliferation of the use of the Internet as an open platform to discuss and debate various issues, the use of defamation lawsuits against members of the public is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.

While freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and has to be exercised responsibly, in our view, there are more constructive ways of responding to online dissent (both valid and invalid) than resorting to a defamation lawsuit.


Defamation proceedings are costly, often resulting in hefty damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the threat of financial ruin is likely to deter the average person from criticising the government. While it can be argued, to some extent, that such deterrence would foster responsible criticism as the speaker would take care not to make careless or baseless allegations, we believe that there are more constructive ways to foster responsibility in exercising freedom of speech. For instance, instead of taking an offending critic to court, the public official could publish a statement in the press or on the relevant website, refuting the critic.


Thus MARUAH calls for a review of the Defamation Law to ensure that allegations of defamation and defamation lawsuits do not suppress the provision of constructive and debatable opinions. As public officials (including government officials) owe a duty of accountability to the public, defamation lawsuits brought by public officials should be subjected to a higher standard of review than those brought by purely private parties. Namely, in addition to proving the test for defamation under Singapore law, the public official plaintiff should bear the burden of proving that the alleged defamatory statement is false.


This would ensure that public officials bring only the most serious cases to court, and by proving his critic wrong, it would also boost public confidence in the public official’s conduct. This would simultaneously minimise the impression that the defamation lawsuit is a tool used by the government to silence (justly or unjustly) its critics. If the evidence to be proffered by the public official plaintiff is of a sensitive nature, in camera court proceedings should be allowed, but only if it is absolutely necessary.


This is a statement that MARUAH has also issued under a A Collective of Singapore NGOs (COSINGO) to the UN Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review system. We ask that our Defamation Law be reviewed, the actions of public officials initiating defamation suits become a last resort after other ways of resolving the matter have been pursued and that we need to realise that different approaches are needed when social media is becoming a public communication tool.

MARUAH

* MARUAH is a human rights NGO based in Singapore. “Maruah” means “dignity” in Malay, Singapore’s national language. Human rights is fundamentally about maintaining, restoring and reclaiming one’s dignity, and MARUAH strives to achieve this by working on national and regional human rights issues. MARUAH is the Singapore focal point of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. MARUAH also has special consultative status on the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). More information on MARUAH can be found at www.maruah.org.
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

/





Blogger Roy Ngerng spent Thursday ( Day 2 , 2 Jul 15 ) in the witness box as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer Davinder Singh carried out a precise, methodical cross-examination, claiming that Ngerng’s expressions of remorse and apology were “false”.


It was the second gruelling day of cross-examinations in the hearing to assess the amount of damages to be paid to PM Lee. Ngerng had spent Wednesday subjecting the Prime Minister himself to seven hours of questioning.


Ngerng once again insisted that he had never had any intention to defame the PM by suggesting that he had personally criminally misappropriated monies from the Central Provident Fund (CPF), and that it was the government – not Lee himself – that he was criticising over the management of the CPF.

Singh’s assertion was that Ngerng had knowingly drawn links between allegations of criminal misappropriation of funds in the City Harvest Church trial and the management of CPF money.
However, Ngerng repeatedly drew distinctions between his criticism of the government for their management of the CPF, and defamation of PM Lee.

He lost his patience at one point in the afternoon, exclaiming, “If I defamed the government, let the government sue me!” before telling Singh not to “make a case for the government because you’re not here as part of [the Attorney-General’s Chambers].”

Singh went on to suggest that Ngerng’s blog post was “very carefully constructed” to tell his readers that Lee, both as Prime Minister and the chairman of GIC, had misappropriated funds.
“Your claim to innocence is contrived,” Singh declared, accusing Ngerng of evading questions.
He went on to suggest that Ngerng had deliberately sensationalised his blog post for personal gain, saying that he was “consumed” by his desire to be a “champion of the CPF issue.”
“I am a champion because the Prime Minister sued me and made me the face of the CPF,” Ngerng retorted.


Singh also accused Ngerng of using the first Letter of Demand sent to him to gain publicity and attention, citing subsequent blog posts, emails and a YouTube video created by the latter as evidence that he was “out to hurt” Lee, and that the Letter of Demand was used to “further twist the knife.”
The integrity of Ngerng’s remorse was then questioned, with Singh claiming that Ngerng was “saying one thing but doing another” by telling the international media that he was being persecuted even while he apologised to Lee for the defamatory blog post.


Ngerng admitted that emails sent to the international media containing links to the defamatory post were a “lapse of judgement”, but pointed out that other articles Lee took issue with had not been deemed defamatory, and that he was therefore not committing any specific wrongdoing by drawing attention to them.

Friday ( 3 Jul 15 ) marks the final day scheduled for the court hearing. Singh will continue his cross-examination before both parties make submissions.

* Article first appeared on The Online Citizen
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PM Lee Takes the Stand (1 Jul 15) at Hearing to Assess Damages Payable by Roy Nge

/

During yesterday’s (1 Jul , Day 1 of 3 ) court hearing to determine the amount of defamatory damages payable to PM Lee Hsien Loong in his personal capacity by blogger Roy Ngerng, Mr Lee’s lawyers from Drew and Napier called for “a very high award of damages” to Mr Lee (‘PM wants ‘a very high award of damages’ from Roy‘).


The lawyers said this is 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 recommended that a higher quantum be awarded in the present case.


They argued that Roy’s allegation of “misappropriation” undermines Mr Lee’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 lawyers said.


At yesterday’s hearing, a netizen recorded some of the exchanges that went on between Roy and Mr Lee as well as his lawyers [Link]:


SSGS not a matter of concern to CPF members


Roy Ngerng cross-examined the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in court today (1 Jul).

Roy asked the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong if the CPF is invested in GIC.

Mr Lee said that CPF is invested in SSGS (government bonds) which becomes assets of the government, some of which could be invested in GIC.

Then, Mr Lee said SSGS is not a matter of concern to CPF members.

Giving people a second chance

Roy Ngerng asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong the following question.

Roy: Mr Lee, you said, “Our people should feel free to express diverse views,… We must give people a second chance.” (Lee Hsien Loong said this in his 2004 swearing-in speech.)


Roy then asked Mr Lee if he would give him a second chance.


Mr Lee told Roy that he would settle the case and see how after that.


Roy then asked Mr Lee again if Mr Lee would give him a second chance.


Mr Lee then said the same thing.


Roy then said: “Ok, Mr Lee, you won’t give me a second chance.” I have no more questions, Your Honour.


This exchange happened in court during the defamation suit between Roy Ngerng and the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.


$5,000 is “derisory”

Roy Ngerng asks Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in court today whether he thinks the $5,000 that he offered to pay him for defamation is “derisory”.


Roy: Mr Lee, you said that your solicitor thinks that the $5,000 is “derisory”.


Mr Lee: Yes.


Roy: Do you think it is “derisory”?


I think in the context of what you said and how you conducted yourself after that, it is not proportionate with the defamation that you have committed.


Roy: So, you think it is derisory.


High damages


Roy Ngerng also asked the Singapore Prime Minister if he should demand high damages from his citizen.


Roy: Mr Lee, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, do you think it is right for you to ask your citizen to pay such high damages?

Davinder: That is irrelevant, Your Honour, the question of what is the appropriate amount of damages.


Roy: Your Honour, he is a public service holder and as a public service holder who earns a high salary, I do think that there is a certain decorum and decency as a public service officer.


Mr Lee’s reputation not hurt by Roy’s articles


Today (2 Jul , Day 2 ), on the second day of the court hearing, Roy continued to maintain that he had had no intention to defame Mr Lee.


Mr Lee’s lawyer, Davinder Singh, who is a former PAP MP, grilled Roy in the witness stand. Mr Singh said that replicating a Channel NewsAsia chart on the City Harvest Church trial, and replacing founder Kong Hee’s photo with that of PM Lee, was evidence of his intent.


“You were so consumed by your desire to promote yourself that you were prepared to make an untrue accusation,” Mr Singh said, after putting it to Roy that his lack of understanding of the term “misappropriation” used in the offending blog post meant he did not understand the implications of using the term.


Roy countered that the “mismanagement of CPF funds” was the government’s fault and not solely Mr Lee’s, adding that the onus was on the government to find out who had mismanaged the funds.


Roy also said that his blog’s reach was too low to hurt Mr Lee’s reputation. “People didn’t care about the article I was sued for. People cared about the demand letter your client sent me,” he told Mr Singh.


Therefore, Mr Lee didn’t suffer a lower standing in the eyes of the public as a result of the defamation, Roy surmised. As proof, he showed instances where users complimented Mr Lee on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page. It showed that despite what Roy has written, many people still support and “love” Mr Lee, according to the posts on Mr Lee’s Facebook page.


Socio-political website The Alternative View asked [Link], “The world’s most expensive Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that Roy Ngerng’s intention was ‘to make as big a dent’ in his reputation as he could. Does he mean his reputation is so fragile that it takes only one person’s posts to dent it?”


The hearing continues.
 
Top