By TR Emeritus

P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
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?
MR: 1.
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!:

January 15, 2015 at 12:28 am  (Quote)

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,

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.”

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Lee Kuan Yew – The Man and his Legacy

~By: Gordon Lee~ First, in 2004, it was the Lee Kuan Yew…

MOM extends apology to Jade Rasif for its possible portrayal of her presenting an inaccurate account in its 17 May statement

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has extended its apology to former DJ…

设法庭有权要求警方查案 《反骚扰修正法》三读通过

国会三读通过《防止骚扰修正法案》,并表示在新法律下,即使受害者只申请保护令而没有寻求警方帮助,法官有责将严重伤害或骚扰案件提交给警方处理。 这是骚扰罪案法庭的责任之一,该法庭是于周二的《防止骚扰法令》修正法案辩论后,决定成立的。有关法庭将设立在国家法院,专门处理所有网络和非网络的骚扰相关案件,并且有专门处理骚扰案件的法官组成。 该法庭拟议在48至72小时之内,为加速保护令进行审讯;在24小时内审理涉及暴力的骚扰罪案。 律政部高级政务部长唐振辉在国会表示,向受害者提供民事救济,如发出保护令并不足够的,尤其是极度严重的骚扰或伤害案件。因此,通过修正法,法官有责考量在发出临时保护令时,是否需要进行刑事调查。“这将确保国家可以介入,以减低受害者面对更严重伤害的风险。” 如果对亲密伴侣、或精神或身体残疾人士进行骚扰,违法者将可能面对两倍的处罚。 在修正案第18条款中,法官被规定在处理紧急保护令申请时,必须判断案件是否构成刑事罪,必要时让警方介入调查。此外,违反保护令的人今后可面对法律制裁。 简化保护令申请程序 《防骚扰修正法》的其他重要修正,包括为了确保受害者获得更快捷和更有效的帮助,将简化保护令申请或加速保护令的程序。 唐振辉表示,当局将和国家法院合作,简化在防止骚扰法案下的保护令申请程序,并且尽量做到和妇女宪章下的程序相同。“受害者只要在骚扰罪法庭,或上网下载简单的表格,提交后就能申请保护令。” 对于多次骚扰受害者的罪犯,将面临更严厉的刑法,并且可能因为违反保护令而当场被捕。 恶意散播个人隐私列刑事罪 修正法也对恶意公开个人隐私或资料的相关案件中,推出了新法律。恶意公开他人隐私,企图导致受害者面对骚扰、恐慌或忧虑情况的行为,将构成刑事罪,并可能面对罚款或监禁。…


又一起个人代步工具引起的火患!民防部队今日于脸书上发文告,三巴旺弯第364B座组屋12楼的一个单位今天凌晨5点左右发生火患。 火灾发生位置涉及至客厅,民防部队接获通报赶往现场将火势扑灭,无人伤亡。 文告表示,据民防部队初步调查显示因为个人代步工具正充电,相信也是火势的起源。 据报道,屋主哈桑(译名)表示两天前友人将电动踏板车带来,是要让他们试骑,殊不知酿成意外。他是今早在睡梦中闻到烧焦味惊醒,立即叫醒妻子与抱起两名孩子逃出组屋,所幸家人无恙。 民防部队借此呼吁民众要遵守使用个人代步工具的安全指示,避免火灾意外发生。 因个人代步工具火警事件频传,本月初陆交局宣布将电动个人代步工具的UL2272标准措施提前半年实施,即指所有个人代步工具必须于明年7月前达到有关防火标准。 电动踏板车必须在明年4月起,通过UL2272标准的认证检查。陆交局表示目前注册的9万辆电动踏板车,有近九成的车子并不符合UL2272安全标准的认证。 据民防部队统计,去年已有74起个人代步工具相关案件被通报,均以充电中火充电后不久引发火患,目前为止导致多人受伤,甚至一名男子离世。