By Ariffin Sha
The defamation case brought by Mr Lee Hsien Loong against blogger Roy Ngerng was heard in chambers at the High Court on Thursday.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin presided over the hearing.
At issue was the application by Mr Lee for a summary judgment from the courts to the lawsuit against Mr Ngerng.
Mr Ngerng is asking the court to allow him leave to defend himself in a court hearing, instead of granting Mr Lee the application.
Mr Lee, who was represented by Mr Davinder Singh from law firm Drew and Napier, had initiated legal proceedings against Mr Ngerng over an article which Mr Ngerng had written and published on his blog earlier this year.
Mr Lee contends that the article had defamed him by alleging that Mr Lee was guilty of misappropriation of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
Mr Ngerng’s defence was centred on two areas, namely, the misinterpretation of Roy’s article by Mr Lee, and how the Defamation Act does not actually restrict Singaporeans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Interpretation of blog article
Mr Ravi argued that the gist of Mr Ngerng’s article drew parallels between the actions of five leaders of the City Harvest Church (CHC) which were deemed to be a criminal breach of trust because monies meant for the church were being channelled to other purposes.
Similarly, all that Mr Ngerng’s article was saying was that the Singapore Government channels CPF monies to various entities (Temasek Holdings, GIC and MAS) which invests the CPF monies and makes profits from these investments.
The Government then enriches itself and its reserves by not returning all profits made from the use of CPF monies to CPF account holders. Instead the Government retains part of the profits legally.
Mr Ravi thus submitted that there was absolutely no allegation from his client against Mr Lee or the Government that they were doing anything unlawful.
Mr Singh, however, maintained that the meaning of the article remained, and that Mr Ngerng had accused his client of criminal misappropriation of the CPF funds. Mr Singh supported his claims with the words used by Mr Ngerng in his blog article.
Mr Ravi argued that the selected portion of the article, when viewed in isolation, might suggest that Mr Lee is indeed guilty of criminal misappropriation.
However, when the article is read as a whole, it is completely untenable that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand from reading the entire blog article, that the Plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation.
Mr Singh nonetheless urged the Court to attach the “greatest weight” to the admissions of guilt by Mr Ngerng.
Mr Ravi argued that on the contrary, the Plaintiff’s own arguments had relied on past authorities which said that any admissions regarding matters of law “are generally of very little weight” because these are “necessarily founded on mere opinion.”
Therefore, Mr Ravi said, Mr Ngerng’s opinion, in the form of his admission, is in fact completely irrelevant to the case before the courts.
Plaintiff’s submissions
Mr Lee submitted that Mr Ngerng cannot rely on the latter part of the blog article as a defence by claiming that he was referring to the Government and not to Mr Lee, and that thus there was no defamation.
Ravi pointed out that this argument was completely disingenuous as the ordinary reasonable reader would know that the Mr Lee is the head of the Singapore Government and the GIC, and that his wife is also the head of Temasek Holdings.
Therefore, it is clear that any reference to the Singapore Government would be relevant in interpreting what the pictorial representations mean, Mr Ravi said.
He added that it is thus not open to Mr Lee to argue that the latter portion of the article is irrelevant in interpreting the article as a whole and for Mr Lee to claim that he is separate from the Government.
Only Parliament can restrict speech
Mr Ravi also argued that Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution declares that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression”, and that any restrictions on such freedom may only be restricted “by law” and can only be “abrogated at the very least by an express Parliamentary provision”.
“Any ‘law’ that purports to restrict freedom of speech must be closely scrutinised with a view to ascertaining whether it meets the precise requirement of the Freedom of Speech Guarantee,” Mr Ravi submitted, referring to the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
In other words, while the law provides for limits to free speech, such restrictions can only be made by a specific body, and in this case, it is Parliament.
But Singapore’s Defamation Act , enacted through Parliament, does not provide restrictions on speech, Mr Ravi said.
Instead, all that the Act does “is to provide for certain modifications and qualifications for a restriction of speech – the common law of defamation”, Mr Ravi explained.
“Nowhere in the Defamation Act does Parliament purport to enact the law of defamation itself,” he added.
The Defamation Act only provides defences to defamation action.
It does not provide that someone can be sued for defamation as a cause of action, unlike in some other jurisdictions.
Rebutting Mr Lee’s lawyers’ claims that the Defamation Act “is premised on the assumption that there is a cause of action for defamation in common law”, Mr Ravi said that Parliament had not, through the Defamation Act itself, “actually enacted that defamation shall be an actionable wrong.”
Common law is thus not applicable as it is not an enactment by Parliament.
The crux of Mr Ravi’s argument is that Article 14 guarantees free speech and this can only be restricted by Parliament by way of an act of Parliament.
There are no such provisions in Singapore’s Constitution, Mr Ravi said.
A citizen’s constitutional right to speech “simply cannot be restricted by the side-wind of a generally worded provision located at the other end of the Constitution which makes absolutely no reference to speech at all,” Mr Ravi said.
“The requirements of the Freedom of Speech Guarantee have not been met by the Defamation Act,” he reiterated.
Nonetheless, Mr Ravi said that ultimately, it is up to the judge to decide if Mr Ngerng’s blog article would be interpreted by an ordinary reasonable reader, who is not avid for scandal, upon reading the article as a whole, that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation
Justice Lee has reserved judgment and will give his decision at a later date on whether to grant Mr Lee a summary judgment as Mr Lee has requested.
Additional reporting by Andrew Loh)

Subscribe
Notify of
64 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

国大公布常年报告 五年来接获71宗性失德行为投诉

自女学生马芸公开遭偷拍等一系列事件,外界关注新加坡国立大学内发生的性失德个案。据报告显示,在过去五年内,国大共接获71宗涉及学生的性失德行为投诉,其中2019年最多,有25宗。 国大昨日(6日)发布首份有关性失德行为投诉的常年报告,当中也列出2020年涉及学生和职员投诉的个案简介,包括投诉类型,以及性失德行为描述。 据报告显示,校方于2020年接获12宗有关性失德行为的投诉,而纪律委员会或纪律上诉委员会也在去年处理了三宗此前的相关投诉,案例均涉及学生。 自2016年至2020年,共接获71宗投诉,其中24宗涉及性相关言语或肢体接触,而另18宗投诉则涉及偷窥。其余投诉则含盗窃内衣物、暴露、偷拍裙底照片或录像。 不仅如此,其中还涉及两宗强奸案例,对此,国大表示,受害者称在未经同意下进行性行为,但经警方和大学介入调查后,并未采取进一步行动。 在这71宗个案中,国大纪律委员会共处理了42宗,另11宗则转交至各院系进行纪律处分。但有13宗个案由于证据不足,校方并未采取进一步行动,其余五起投诉正在调查中。 报告中提到,每宗性失德行为个案均在公平和中立的原则下,以公正和敏感的方式处理。校方将严阵以待每项投诉,并将按照程序展开彻底调查。 除此之外,报告也公开每年所接获的个案数,在2019年所接获的投诉最多,约25宗。大部分投诉是在4月份,即校方就偷拍事件召开学生大会后。 由于2019年国大女学生马芸遭男同学偷拍事件,启发许多人站出来举报相关罪行。 2019年,国大女生马芸将自己遭男同学林俊凯偷拍洗澡的经历在网络上公开,并直指对校方的处理方式不满,引发各界关注和舆论。国大事后也承认未妥善处理,促进校方完善有关性失德案件的处理程序,例如宣布成立受害者支援单位,同时改进校舍安保问题。 除了学生所涉及的性失德行为案件,报告也针对职员涉及性失德行为投诉进行调查。在过去五年,国大共接获19宗相关案件,其中大部分则被归类为性相关言语或肢体接触、与性挑逗和以性作为交换条件。 至于如何做出改善,报告也说明,校方为了促进尊重文化方面的发展,已推展“尊重与同意文化”的必修课程。…

Anwar wins!

Anwar Ibrahim wins Malaysian by-election with a huge victory. This is the press statement released by his office after the results were confirmed.

彭博社报导(下):分析指退市或是好兆头 活跃股市乃加分,非不可或缺

新加坡仍被视作成功的典范:在已故建国总理李光耀的领导下,仅一代人的努力就让我国跃升为全球第三富有国家。提供低税赋、透明的司法系统、高知识水平的劳动力,对跨国企业的欢迎,让我国跻身全球首屈一指的金融中心,乃至有人认为,新加坡可成为英国脱欧后的发展参考。 不过,如今我国也在面对中国崛起、借助香港资本市场赶超全球经济的挑战。 彭博社认为,这些经济发展都不完全依赖于股票市场。 United First Partners亚洲研究主任Justin Tang就认为,较平静的股市似乎不影响我国最为金融中心的名声。而经济学家Chua Hak Bin则认为,从更宏观格局来看,股票市场不再向过去那样举足轻重,只不过活跃的资本市场可以是经济的加分优势,但不是缺之不可。 至于东南亚彭博社财经报导人Tamara Henderson甚至直言,退市趋势可能是个好兆头,对于退市公司他们不再受季度报告掣肘,可以放眼长远成长,从而稳定经济,或许是财富的预兆。 在新加坡,经济财富就是基石。安本标准投资的James Thom分享,股票市场对我国金融管理领域的“巨大增长”或金融业的普遍活力,几乎没有影响。他说,更重要的是,人们认为这个国家是一个安全的,可以找到好的投资建议和管理者。至于蓬勃的股市有最好,但不是必需品。…

GE 2011: Some GRCs may go uncontested

TOC has confirmed that not all Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) may be…