Human Rights lawyer, M Ravi issues a press release to say that the statement made by Ms Chang Li-Lin, Press Secretary of the Singapore Prime Minister confirms his points through the jottings of the hearing.

On Tuesday morning, M Ravi as representing lawyer for Mr Ngerng in the defamation suit launched by Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong last year, said that the statement made by the PM Lee’s press secretary to the media is an inaccurate statement, and that she has been misinformed. (read more)

He also posed the question of why is the press secretary to the Prime Minister issuing press releases on behalf of PM Lee who is filing the law suit in his personal capacity.

On the evening of the same day, Ms Chang referred to the legal notes by PM Lee’s lawyers to rebut the statement by M Ravi, saying that her statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.

She also states that it is entirely proper for her to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary. (read more)

Below is M Ravi’s press release in its entirety,

Background

“Is Mr. Roy Ngerng prepared to give evidence and be cross-examined?” YES.

This can now be confirmed on the basis of his instructions to his Advocates.

“Is it correct to say that I “indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.”? NO.

This was an inaccuracy in a press release issued under the name of Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,(“PSPM”) to which I have already drawn attention.

The Saga Continues

PSPM has now (on Tuesday January 13 2015) issued another press release to allegedly rebut my assertion of the inaccuracy in her first press release .

PSPM said that her statement was based on “contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier”- which she proceeded to reproduce in relevant part in full. The notes are best described as abbreviated jottings (“Jottings”) in the usual type of legal short-hand.

It is not suggested by PSPM that the Jottings are a complete verbatim transcript of the hearing, but they seem to me to be accurate, precise and complete as far as they go.

They DO NOT say that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.” Indeed the Jottings nowhere use any language such as “did not want to be cross-examined” or anything like it.

So where did PSPM get the idea that I “indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.”?

The Jottings refer to two interjections by Counsel for Mr. Lee Hsien Loong made immediately after my referring to my client giving evidence. [Square brackets explain the codes.]

“P.[Counsel for the Plaintiff] I will be xxing [cross-examining] if standing as AEIC” [if Mr. Roy Ngerng’s affidavit is to be admitted to stand as evidence in chief] and

“If D [Mr. Roy Ngerng] chooses to give AEIC [affidavit of evidence in chief]  in whatever form I will be xxing”.

As an Advocate should do at that point in the forensic exchange, I  moved swiftly to protect my client’s right to have the final say whether to give evidence in chief (and be cross examined). I felt this was necessary given the sudden display of fervour of my learned opponent to engage in “xxing” my client and an Advocate knows his client’s instructions are paramount..

I was not taking notes of what I was saying however my recollection is that I said, when asked, I would take instructions. The Jottings provide a fascinating clue to this when a key question is raised by me towards the end:

”MR. If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?”

It seems fair to say (if I may be permitted to say it myself) that I was at this point asking the learmed Judge whether if my client did decide to give evidence, would the Court be expecting a further application? This is precisely consistent with my previously stated position that my recollection is that I indicated at the hearing that I would be taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence. Curiously, and sadly perhaps, PSPM makes no mention of this key question in what is otherwise a very comprehensive discussion of the Jottings.

There are other points of detail in PSPM’s rebuttal with which one could disagree, but I do not wish to unduly burden PSPM  with minor quibbles. The important point- and a point that bears repetition- is that I did NOT at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. This is confirmed by the Jottings. I thank PSPM for producing them and thereby putting the record straight.

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

退休银行家敢敢揭发! “业界都知某些银行排挤新加坡专才”

前日《海峡时报》报导,本地数家银行宣称,他们有强大的本地人核心雇员团队,也培育本地人才的渠道。 不过一位退休银行家可不这么认为。他在《海峡时报》论坛发文,指出过去20年,不少在新加坡金融领域的外籍人士,担任中高级管理职位。 “一旦被雇用,这些外籍职员很容易就能在短时间内拿到永久居民。故此,分析本地雇员比例,把新加坡公民和永久居民相提并论是令人混肴的。” 早前,渣打银行声称其新加坡籍员工占了七成;星展银行称,银行1万2千人的雇员中,90巴仙以上都是新加坡人和永久居民。 瑞银(UBS)声称,她3千员工中,75巴仙都是本地人或永久居民。 这位退休银行家 Raymond Koh Bock Swi,坦言在疫情冲击下的经济,失去待遇优渥的PMET工作,对国人是棘手的问题。 他也建议,银行应向金融管理局和人力部,揭露新加坡籍雇员,与永久居民和其他外籍人士的比例多少,有多少新加坡人担任高管也要披露。 再者,也要规定雇用一定比例的本地雇员,例如新加坡银行应雇用九成,而非新加坡银行雇佣85巴仙等。若因特殊原因雇员比例有不同,也应有合理的理由和获得政府机构批准。…

对涉高价售口罩商家发警告信 政府调整发放口罩优先权

部分零售商“趁火打劫”,将口罩售价离谱“炒”高,贸工部今天对涉及高价售卖口罩的零售商和三大网络商家发出警告信。 身兼人民协会副主席的贸工部长陈振声,今天出席武汉肺炎防疫跨部门工作小组的记者会,并指出当局今日(30日)向零售商Deen Express、以及三大网络商店,Lazada、Qoo10和Carousell发出警告信,要求相关单位就高价兜售口罩的依据和口罩成本,向贸工部进行申报。 他表示,政府当局绝对不允许有关的坐地起价行为,并严厉谴责相关业者,更呼吁民众不要向相关业者购买口罩,以免形成不良风气。 九日来发放逾500万口罩仍不足 身在现场的国家发展部长兼财政部第二部长黄循财随后在脸书上帖文,强调我国口罩库存充足,并且呼吁人们遵循医疗建议使用口罩。换句话说,即有不适者才需要戴口罩,而身体强健者,可以将口罩让给那些有需要者。 黄循财指出,当局在过去九天内,从全国库存中向零售商发出超过了500万的口罩,却在数小时内被抢购一空,而且还是有许多新加坡人民无法买的口罩。“显然的,这情况不可持续下去了。” 前线医疗工作者优先权 因此,当局决定更改口罩分发方式,首先建议为基层服务的群体,即处于第一线的医疗保健工作者们拥有优先权。接着,当局将发放口罩给新加坡人,并将为每个本地家庭提供四个口罩。 当局此举是为了确保所有的新加坡居民受到照顾,若家庭成员中有人生病且需要口罩,他们都会有口罩。“但是居民必须有责任地使用口罩,而不是拿到就戴上了,而是家中有人生病,且需要外出看病时才使用口罩。” “我知道许多国人都很担心感染到这种病毒(武汉肺炎),并希望家人和自己都受到保护。” 他表示,最好的防疫方法是保持良好个人卫生习惯,经常使用肥皂洗手、勿用手触碰脸部、生病了请就医,并在家中养病至康复为止。…

Remembering the 22

100 turn up for solemn gathering to remember 21 May 1987. Andrew Loh

Indranee says to engage citizens but her MOE questions people’s intention of bringing matter up

Giving an update to the media on the government’s “SG Together” movement…