By TR Emeritus
P: Will D be filing aff?
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower proceedings.
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?
I believe PSPM may have completely misinterpreted the above dialogue that took place before the judge.
Ravi indicated that he would not be filing “fresh” AEIC. Instead, he wanted the “previous” AEIC that was filed in Order 14 to stand as AEIC for the assessment of damages. Note at this point, there are 2 timelines – one for the completed O.14 (Summary judgment) and the other for the forthcoming Assessment of Damages.
At this point, Singh interjected saying he would be cross examining Roy if “standing” as AEIC. The term “standing” used by Singh is important because Singh must have been referring to the previous AEIC. In other words, Singh is saying if Roy does not file a fresh AEIC for Assessment of Damage but adopting the previous AEIC, thus the use of the word “standing”, meaning the old one stands, then Singh would cross examine Roy (based on the previous AEIC).
At this point, Ravi replied to the judge that his client would not be filing “fresh” AEIC. That is to say, the previous AEIC “stands” and Singh may proceed to cross examine Roy (just as Singh said he would “if standing as AEIC”).
PSPM fxxx up the whole episode by not paying attention to the word “standing” as by Singh. She misinterpreted Singh, when he said “standing”, as referring to a fresh AEIC.
The word “filing” refers to filing a fresh AEIC; the word “standing” refers to something that has been filed and allowed to continue, i.e. the previous AEIC.
Now you get it, PSPM ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Queen’s Cow Sir!:
No，PSPM is not a mind reader. The irony is she, as spokeswoman for PM, misunderstood her own counsel.
Like I have explained before, Singh used the term “standing” to refer to the previous AEIC. So Singh said : “I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.”
Effectively Singh is saying if Roy is NOT going to file a new AEIC for the hearing to decide on the damages that Roy must pay PM, and if Roy is going to use the same AEIC filed previously during the Order 14 hearing, then I will be cross examining Roy.
PSPM, however, misunderstood Singh. She thought Singh meant: “I will be cross-examining Roy if he files a (fresh) AEIC.” And when Ravi replied: “Therefore, I won’t be filing (a fresh AEIC)”. PSPM read Ravi’s reply in context with her misinterpretation of Singh’s statement.
In short, her misinterpretation:
Singh : If Roy files new AEIC, I will cross examine him.
Ravi : Okay, I don’t want Roy to be cross examined, therefore I won’t be filing a new AEIC.
The correct interpretation:
Singh: If Roy is going to order the previous AEIC to stand as AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages, then I will cross examine Roy.
Ravi: I will not be filing a fresh AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages. I will order the previous AEIC to stand as AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages. Singh may proceed to cross examine Roy as he said he would.
Judge: Are you sure you’re going to rely on just the AEIC filed previously for the Order 14 hearing? I give you two weeks, you go check if there are further documents you might need for the forthcoming coming.
Clear ?? PSPM ??
Both comments appeared in TRE article: Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court
Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, had earlier on Tuesday (13 January) referred to the legal notes by PM Lee’s lawyers to rebut a statement from Human Rights lawyer, M Ravi who said Ms Chang had issued an “inaccurate statement” and was “misinformed” over his client’s willingness to be cross-examined.
Said Ms Chang in a statement issued to the media on Tuesday: “(Mr Ngerng’s lawyer) M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.”
“My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct,” she added, citing a letter dated Dec 22, 2014, and court submissions on Jan 9 this year as occasions on which Drew & Napier had indicated to the court that Mr Lee was ready to be cross-examined.”