Ngerng, Lee
Ngerng, Lee
Ngerng, Lee
 
Blogger Roy Ngerng, who is being sued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong for defamation, filed his defence on Monday with the High Court.
Mr Lee is also the prime minister of Singapore but is suing Mr Ngerng in his personal capacity.
In his court submissions, Mr Ngerng said while his apology to Mr Lee for an article he wrote on 15 May remains, he nonetheless is disputing Mr Lee’s claims that the article had in fact defamed Mr Lee as claimed in Mr Lee’s lawsuit.
The article had accused Mr Lee of “criminal misappropriation” of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies, said Mr Lee’s lawyers, by comparing the management of CPF monies by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore – or GIC Pte Ltd – with the ongoing corruption trial of leaders of the City Harvest Church.
Mr Lee’s lawyers from Drew and Napier had issued a letter of demand to Mr Ngerng on 18 May for the latter to withdraw the offending article on Mr Ngerng’s blog.
They also demanded that Mr Ngerng issued an apology and to make an offer of an amount of compensation to Mr Lee.
Mr Ngerng complied with all the demands.
However, Mr Lee’s lawyers dismissed the apology as insincere, and said that their demand for the removal of the article was not complied with, and that the S$5,000 offer of compensation to Mr Lee by Mr Ngerng was “derisory”.
On 12 July, Mr Lee’s lawyers filed an application with the courts for a summary judgment, arguing that Mr Ngerng has accepted and admitted to defaming Mr Lee in his apology, and thus Mr Ngerng has no defence to Mr Lee’s claims.
Mr Lee is also seeking aggravated damages from Mr Ngerng.
The only issue to be determined, Mr Lee’s lawyers say, is the quantum of damages.
Mr Ngerng, represented by lawyer M Ravi, is however disputing this and wants the matter to go to a full trial.
In his affidavit filed on Monday, Mr Ngerng disputes the meanings of the allegedly defamatory article ascribed to it by Mr Lee’s lawyers, and argues that the content of the article “does not convey the twisted meaning” which Mr Lee’s lawyers claim it does.
Instead, Mr Ngerng is arguing that his article had raised two issues – one, transparency of where the funds managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings originate and who actually manages the CPF funds; two, why Singaporeans do not receive “the full amount of the investment gains from the investment of CPF monies.”
On the first point, Mr Ngerng argues that “there is no transparency in the manner in which CPF monies were invested.”
Mr Ngerng refers to an earlier entry on the website of the GIC, which had said:

“GIC manages the Government’s reserves, but as to how the funds from CPF monies flow into reserves which could then be managed by either MAS, GIC or Temasek, this is not made explicit to us.”

Mr Ngerng says that the GIC’s “stated position [was] not transparent, as one is unable to discern whether it is MAS, GIC or Temasek that manages CPF monies.”
He added that “it is inconceivable that GIC does not know whether or not it manages CPF funds” given that “the Plaintiff, the two deputy prime ministers and the ministers for Trade & Industry and Education sit on the board of directors of GIC.”
It was only later on that the GIC “admit to managing CPF monies”, Mr Ngerng says, after he had published his allegedly offensive article.
“Likewise, the Government has only after I published the article stated that Temasek Holdings does not manage CPF monies.  This was quite different from GIC’s initial public statement that CPF monies flow into reserves which could be managed by either GIC, MAS or Temasek Holdings and that they were not told explicitly whether they were managing CPF monies or not.”
Mr Ngerng’s affidavit then pointed to three occasions in the past where he said “the Government and the GIC had denied that the GIC manages CPF monies.”
In his affidavit, Mr Ngerng explains:

“In 2007, to a question asked by the Worker’s Party Secretary-General Low Thia Kiang, ‘I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister. Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest?’, then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen had denied that the GIC manages CPF monies and said, ‘Sir, The answer is no.’
“Also, in 2006, on at the GIC 25th Anniversary Dinner, then-Minister Mentor and GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew had said ‘there is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on CPF accounts.’
“And in 2001, at a press conference to mark GIC’s 20th anniversary, then-Senior Minister and GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew had said in an article in The Straits Times, headlined, ‘GIC does not use CPF funds: SM Lee’, ‘I want to clarity that there is no direct link between the GIC and the CPF.’”

Mr Ngerng says that these three instances showed that the Government had “misled Singaporeans.”
“However,” Mr Ngerng says, “after I wrote the Article, the Government and the GIC volte-faced on their position in June this year.”
Mr Ngerng then turned to the second meaning which he says was contrary to what Mr Lee’s lawyers ascribed to the blog article.
The point he was making in his article was namely that: The Government (through GIC and Temasek Holdings) retains and enriches itself with a large proportion of the investment gains made by GIC and Temasek Holdings when they invest CPF monies.
Mr Ngerng argues that, first, “the CPF was one of the largest retirement funds” in the world; and second, “that GIC and Temasek Holdings … were the 8th and 9th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.”
At the time of the writing of his article, Mr Ngerng notes, “it was not made known to either the general public or myself at that time whether or not Temasek Holdings manages CPF monies.”
Mr Ngerng argues that despite the above, “according to the Asian Development Bank Institute, the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2013 and the OECD, Singaporeans had one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.”
Mr Ngerng says “something was not adding up.”
“Why was it that GIC and Temasek Holdings were amongst the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world and yet Singaporeans had one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world?” Mr Ngerng asked in his affidavit. “Especially so when GIC and Temasek Holdings (according to the GIC at that time) were managing CPF monies?” [sic] Mr Ngerng’s affidavit then referred to remarks made by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at a recent public forum, where Mr Ngerng had also attended.
Mr Ngerng argued that Mr Tharman’s answers to his questions about the management of the CPF funds by the Government, showed that there was a lack of transparency in the management of CPF funds, and that there were also contradictions in what the Government had claimed, and that this was “completely unacceptable and disingenuous, and puts the lives of the citizens of Singapore at risk.”
Mr Ngerng then explains:

“I therefore made the point that the average Singaporean suffers in that they do not get the full returns from the investment gains made by GIC and Temasek Holdings from managing their hard earned CPF monies.  Instead, the Government (through GIC and Temasek Holdings) retains and enriches itself with a large proportion of the investment gains made by GIC and Temasek Holdings when they invest CPF monies.    It is not the full amount of the investment gains from the investment of CPF monies which are returned to CPF account holders.”

Mr Ngerng says that “if there has been any assertion by me that certain entities are profiting from the people’s funds, such an assertion is against the Government, GIC and Temasek Holdings, as they do not return to Singaporeans the full amount of investment gains made from investing Singaporeans CPF monies.”
He added that “neither were they at the time I wrote the article transparent as to who was managing CPF monies.”
“There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies,” Mr Ngerng says. “I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well.
“It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”
Mr Ngerng is thus asking the court to allow him to fight Mr Lee’s lawsuit in open court, instead of granting Mr Lee the summary judgment he seeks, which would mean there would be no open contest of Mr Lee’s claims.
However, Mr Ngerng says that his apology to Mr Lee, and his statement that there is no basis to say that Mr Lee is guilty of “criminal misappropriation” of the CPF monies, still stands, “regardless of the Judgment reached by the Courts on the legal meaning of the words complained of by the Plaintiff.”
However, Mr Ngerng also says that “the article does not in law bear out the meaning which the Plaintiff solicitors claim it does.”
“These are legal matters for my lawyers to argue in Court and I will leave it to my lawyers to make the legal arguments and for the Court to decide on the legal meaning of the words,” Mr Ngerng adds.
A hearing has been scheduled in the High Court for Sept 18 for the court to decide if it would grant a summary judgment to Mr Lee.
Read Mr Ngerng’s affidavit in full here.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【诽谤诉讼】林鼎指责总理不敢起诉弟妹 质问谁让已故李光耀相信故居将被保留?

李显龙总理起诉本社总编许渊臣诽谤案,控辩双方在大年初四(本月15日)进行口头辩论。 只因一篇文章中,复述了总理弟妹李玮玲和李显扬的指控,总理李显龙提告本社总编许渊臣诽谤。诉讼在去年11月30日进行,一直持续到12月3日。在昨日法官聆听诉辩双方结束陈词,将给予两周时间提呈补充资料,并保留裁决。 许渊臣的代表律师是林鼎,昨日在庭上质问控方,若不是总理李显龙提及,又是谁让已故建国总理李光耀,相信欧思礼38号故居可能被宪报保留为古迹? “如果不是总理,又会是谁让他(李光耀)产生这个印象?(故居将保留)?” 林鼎昨日在庭上分析,这绝不是李显扬和李玮玲会这么告知父亲,因为他们都支持拆除故居;即便李光耀生前的私人律师柯金梨也不会,因为她坦言曾两度查找欧思礼路38号故居,是否已被宪报为古迹。 林鼎也再次提及去年审讯时抛出的疑点,是否总理与夫人有意迁入故居(去年总理曾在庭上强调,若故居被保留的一些考量,包括出租,或自己先住上一段时间,直到其敏感性降低,或房子被拆除)。 林鼎也再次指责总理“没有勇气”提控自己的弟妹,因为弟妹们拥有他不愿在庭上被公开揭露的文件。 他认为,对许渊臣的诉讼,就像总理对时评人梁实轩的官司一样,是一场“代理官司”(surrogate litigation);也抨击总理发起的官司浪费时间,且毫无必要。 他指出,涉案文章仅仅是复述了总理弟妹早前已公开的指控,也无证据能说明, 总理为此蒙受损失。但文达星则重提,总理早前接受盘问时,已表达本身的信任、信誉和尊重蒙受损失。 更何况,网友们的讨论,多围绕在何晶在社交媒体转发帖文的行为,和具诽谤性内容毫无关系。…

新叙事提公民议程 促进深刻社会议题讨论

立足本土,倡议东南亚区域媒体、民主、言论和资讯自由的行动媒体《新叙事》(New Naratif),在本周日(11日)宣布推广“公民议程”,希望能促进公民对关乎本土社会课题的积极讨论,以及对时政议题的参与。 在推广公民议程的短片简介中,《新叙事》总监覃炳鑫博士解释,新加坡将举行选举,然而主流媒体倾向于琐碎和片面地报导新闻。 无法深入了解议题,不利于公民在投票中作出正确选择,也把那些有意深刻讨论社会议题的公民拒于门外。 “公民值得更好的,但从未有机会和候选人和政党领导人直接对话的我们,能够把我们切身关注的议题,提到议程上?” 覃炳鑫说,新叙事是独立、读者资助的刊物,也将接力为身为公民的读者们,找出大家所关心的议题,并在选举前激发对新加坡政治真诚、切题的讨论。 他说,该媒体将以四种新加坡官方语言,进行社区民意调查,询问民众他们最关注些什么议题?而问卷问题只有一个: “您认为在新加坡的语境中,有哪些课题是值得关注的?您认为各候选人在赢取民众支持时,应该谈论哪些课题?” 或者:“您认为各政党候选人,在寻求民意支持时,应讨论那些课题?” 他鼓励大家邀请亲朋戚友一同来填问卷,并在本月底对民众的反馈进行分析、总结,不过会再请民众排序,藉此列出民众最关注的五大课题,并去质询各政党候选人,他们打算如何去处理这些民众最关注的问题? 他希望透过公民议程,能促使媒体在选举报导上专注在群众关注的课题上,而《新叙事》也会根据民众的反馈作为报导方向的参考。 他也欢迎民众到《新叙事》网页填写有关问卷:https://newnaratif.typeform.com/to/Cbt6a1…

在地铁里抽电子烟还放上网 三名青少年被判有条件警告

日前三名在地铁里抽电子烟的青少年被判处有条件警告,并需要完成社区康复方案,以及无犯罪12个月。 该三名青少年于今年3月25日时被拍摄到在地铁上抽电子烟,最后视频被上传至社交媒体上。 视频中可见,一群年轻人在地铁里被发现使用类似笔一样的东西,在朋友的衬衫里抽烟。该视频被警方发现,并进行调查。 三名青少年里分别为13岁、16岁和18岁。其中13岁和16岁的少年被判有条件警告,并需要完成社区康复计划,和无犯罪12个月。而另名18岁少年亦因其他犯罪行为,违反《烟草(广告和销售控制)法》,被罚款200元和500元。 卫生科学局表示,将会对拥有和使用被禁止的电子烟,以及相关物品严正以待,并采取执法行动。 “在这种情况下,青少年在禁止吸烟的火车上抽烟,公然藐视法律,无视其他现场通勤者,还将视频上传到社交媒体上故意炫耀违法行为。” 鉴于两位未成年是首次犯罪,他们必须接受社区康复治疗,若在未来12个月内再次犯罪,将可被起诉。 根据《烟草法》,新加坡禁止购买、使用和拥有新款烟草产品和仿制烟草产品的新条例将生效,包括网络或进口烟。若触犯法令,可罚款高达2万元。新款烟草产品和仿制烟草产品,包括电子烟、电子烟管、水烟、咀嚼烟草和无烟烟草产品。 根据现有法令,任何人都不准进口、销售和批发新款烟草产品和仿制烟草产品。触犯条例者可被罚款高达1万元,或坐牢长达6个月,或两者兼施。重犯者可被罚款最高2万新元,或坐牢长达12个月,或两者兼施。 卫生科学局公布,自2018年2月1日期至2020年6月30日,已有1千335人因使用电子烟而被捕。 违例者最高可被处以2千元的罚款。

与脚踏车碰撞 罗厘阿叔被控“鲁莽行为”打算抗辩

因涉与脚踏车碰撞,罗厘司机张胜仲面对一项因疏忽行为危害他人生命安危的控状。但目前控方有意将他所面对的控状,从“疏忽行为”提升至“鲁莽行为” ,并要求至少两周监禁。 “升级”的控状指58岁的张胜仲行为鲁莽,罗厘突然左转撂倒脚踏车骑士Eric Cheung。 去年12月24日,张胜仲驾驶罗厘开车前往樟宜尾。在巴西立第3通道附近,眼见前方两辆脚踏车一左一右并行,其中一辆挡在马路中央,于是他鸣笛一声,希望对方让路,但脚车司机毫无反应,只是到交通灯前回头看了他一眼。 而后脚踏车骑士疑不满被鸣笛,出手打落罗厘的左侧镜,此举可能令张胜仲受到惊吓,以为自己撞到右边德士,本能地往左边避开,但也因此撂倒脚踏车骑士,后者倒在路边草坪上。 在《刑事法典》下,鲁莽驾驶危害他人生命安危的控状,罪成可面对最长一年监禁,或高达五千元罚款,或两者兼施。 张胜仲原本有意认罪,但基于控方将控状“升级”,而选择抗辩。