By Howard Lee
The latest turn in the legal tussle between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and blogger Roy Ngerng, on a defamatory post that Ngerng has made against PM Lee, saw Ngerng’s lawyer M Ravi seeking clarification on the validity of PM Lee to claim aggravated damages.
Through a document sent by hand yesterday, Ravi sought clarification from Drew & Napier, PM Lee’s legal representative, on how Ngerng could have caused aggravated damage to PM Lee.
A report published in The Straits Times indicated that Drew & Napier has replied to Ravi with the necessary evidence. However, a number of queries and calls for proof posed by M Ravi did not seem to have been responded to.
For instance, in the amended defence filed on 27 June, Ravi indicated that PM Lee was aggrieved that the offending article, while removed by Ngerng, was “accessed and downloaded by “various people”, whom he does not name and about whom he gives no particulars.”
“Since the Plaintiff claims substantial damages from the Defendant, he is to put proof (i) of whether any identified (or identifiable) person accessed or downloaded the Article on the Blog and (ii) (whether or not the Plaintiff is able to identify any publishee of the Article) of any alleged impact or effect on him as a result of the Article on the Blog being accessed or downloaded.”
Drew & Napier did not provide the proof requested. Instead, in its response dated 25 June, it had reiterated its earlier position that Ngerng “had no intention of abiding by his undertaking (of making the apology)”, and it has always been Ngerng’s “intention to opportunistically use the occasion of the (PM Lee’s) lawful and legitimate demand to raise (Ngerng’s) public profile, garner support and sympathy, and renew his attack against the Plaintiff.”
Drew & Napier also cited another video by Ngerng, which it claimed Ngerng used to assert that “he was “right” to make the allegations of criminal misappropriation against the Plaintiff, that the allegation was “the truth”, that the Plaintiff has used the law to suppress the fact of his criminal misappropriation… and that the Defendant did not “regret” making the allegation against the Plaintiff.”
Ravi further indicated that the subject of the defamation – the trail of City Harvest Church members that received media and public interest – has yet to receive a “guilty” verdict, and readers of Ngerng’s blog “would have known that the City Harvest Church case was ongoing.”
Ravi also indicated that the offending blog post did not just focus on the defamatory matter, but also delved extensively into the CPF system and concerns about its management.
“As would have been clear to readers, principal concerns included the lack of transparency in relation to the manner in which the Singapore Government, MAS, GIC, and/or Temasek managed the funds from CPF monies; the question of interest on the money in the CPF; the growth of GIC and Temasek as wealth fund managers; and the retirement pension position for the citizens of Singapore. Readers would have read the whole of the Article and, accordingly, would have considered the Words and Images Complained of in the context of the whole.”
Ravi also wrote that PM Lee’s statement of claims did not “set out any “reasons” to show why the Plaintiff “has suffered” any loss or damage”as a result of what Ngerng published.
In addition, Ravi also wrote that PM Lee was not able to proof why the initial offer of damage by Ngerng, amounting to $5,000, was “derisory”, and if more was to be expected from Ngerng, PM Lee needs to put to proof “the basis upon which such damages are claimed”.
M Ravi told TOC that he will be making a full submission based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees a Singaporean’s right to freedom of expression, and will cite Commonwealth papers to show that PM Lee has no cause of action against Ngerng. He added that he will not comment on this matter for now as the case is before court.

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

Composition of Honour Singapore raises questions about its values

By Terry Xu A new non-profit organisation (NPO) called Honour (Singapore), officially…

【国会】议员倡议直播国会议事 傅海燕称现有国会资讯管道“即时、方便”

昨日(5月5日),官委议员王丽婷和工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera),不约而同呼吁国会应进行直播,让民众也能理解和跟进国会针对疫情和其他重大政策的讨论。 不过,国会领袖傅海燕则指出,广播并不在此次宪法修正案的讨论事项。再者民众目前仍能以现有的方式,“即时、方便地”获取国会议事内容。 昨日国会三读通过宪法修正案,允许部分国会议员在国会外的地点,也能连线参与议事,确保疫情不会影像国会运作。不过有鉴于本地疫情渐缓,国会暂未启动相关安排。 国会直播有助民众了解国会辩论、决策过程 对此,贝理安就认为,若安排国会可在不同地点连线议事,那么肯定需安排和投资在直播的程序。如果将来这种举措还会持续,那么不妨藉此尝试直播,测试民众对国会直播的需求量如何。 他认为,直播国会会议有助民众了解国会议事、决策和辩论的过程,也能吸引民众向他们的代议士提供反馈。 这不是他首次提倡国会直播。在2017年11月她曾作出相关询问,但当时,通讯与新闻部高级政务部长徐芳达却指,国人收看国会直播的需求不大。 “消弭不对等” 至于官委议员王丽婷则指出,回溯2018年议长陈川仁也曾指出“任何发生在国会的事,都会对新加坡和国人带来影响”,故此让民众有机会看国会直播,能消弭资讯不对等、消除错误信息,以及促进更有建设性的公共讨论。 她也举例,即便跨政府部门抗疫小组的新闻发布会也是直播的,民众能够即时获取当前防疫资讯,实现信息透明和问责的领导能力。这有助增强民众对抗疫的信心。 也是文化、社区及青年部长的傅海燕,则指出宪法修正案未讨论广播的事项,再者民众目前仍能以现有的方式,“即时、方便地”获取国会议事内容。…

Education Minister says Singapore tackles inequality by uplifting those at the bottom, all while Singapore still ranks low on equality index

Tackling inequality by investing in the bottom to uplift them – that…

马六甲海峡受重金属污染 食品局指进口贝类海鲜没超标

马来西亚专家指马六甲海峡受重金属污染,促请人们不要食用贝类海鲜,以免受到影响染病。我国食品局则表示,马国贝类海鲜供应只占了市场约四成,因此人们无需惊慌,仍可享用适量的贝类海鲜。 马来西亚登嘉楼大学(UMT)海洋科学及环境系海洋生物科的高级讲师王明全(译音)副教授指出,一支由25名科学家和研究人员组成的团队,在3月13日至22日的研究活动期间,发现马六甲海峡出现了高浓度的重金属污染。 这些金属包括了有砷、镉、铅和汞(水银)。 他说,调查结果显示,柔佛州、巴生港和槟城附近海域的重金属污染风险较高。 他说,这种情况间接导致食物来源被污染,因为贝类的性质是呆在一个地方,不会因为觅食而移动的。“显然的,如果海水受到重金属污染,它将直接影响到食物链上。” 促当局对付污染海域人士 该研究团队分两条航线(马六甲海峡和南海),收集了超过45个区域的样本。 他指出,与南海相比,马六甲海峡的污染程度更高,因为它浅而窄,且港口和河口的长期工业活动也是因素之一。 “而河口水域的河流较弱,使重金属容易下沉并积聚在河床上。” 专家也促请当局采取行动,对付污染海域人士,避免金金河事件重演。 马国贝类占四成 针对有关的发现,食品局于周二(4月9日)回应《亚洲新闻台》询问时表示,从马来西亚进口的贝类样品和测试,符合我国对食品安全中重金属的标准。…