Roy Ngerng emerges from the Supreme Court to camera flashes and questions from the media after a day spent cross-examining PM Lee Hsien Loong.
Roy Ngerng emerges from the Supreme Court to camera flashes and questions from the media after a day spent cross-examining PM Lee Hsien Loong.

• The queue to the courtroom where the hearing for damaged to be awarded to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his defamation suit against Roy Ngerng was filled by about 8.30am. By the time the trial started at 10am, half of those in the queue found themselves still outside the courtroom.

• The Online Citizen understands that a number of those inside the courtroom were supporters of PM Lee. They had waved at him when he entered the courtroom, to which he had acknowledged their presence.

• Ngerng’s family members, while having arrived at 9.30am, were not able to secure seats inside the courtroom, and spent much of the morning waiting outside. Eventually, the security guards helped to secure an entry pass from someone who had left the room for the morning. Ngerng’s father then entered at about 12pm to hear his son cross-examine PM Lee.

• Ngerng noted several times during the hearing that he was uncomfortable with PM Lee making claims to damages based on what he felt were “suggestions” that people read the defamatory articles, without providing substantive evidence of readership. However, High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin reminded him that in his submission, “what Davinder (Singh, PM Lee’s lawyer) is suggesting that a swallow does make a summer.”

PM Lee and Roy• Ngerng queried PM Lee on his claim that, simply because he had written that his article was “of considerable public interest”, it does not mean that people will want to read it. “I’m sure you didn’t write this hoping Singaporeans would not read it,” countered PM Lee.

• Ngerng queried PM Lee on whether he had specifically stated in any of his articles that PM Lee was guilty of “criminal misappropriation of CPF funds”. PM Lee repeatedly alluded that it was the intent of the article that mattered, but both him and his lawyer eventually conceded that Ngerng did not use that specific term.

• Ngerng queried if he made any comparison between what is happening in City Harvest Church and the person “Lee Hsien Loong” in the original blog post that started the defamation charge. PM Lee replied that Ngerng referred to the government, of which he is the head – “You did not have to (name me specifically)”, said PM Lee, to which Ngerng retorted empathetically, “Mr Lee, I did not want to!”, in trying to say that he had no malicious intent.

• Ngerng asked PM Lee whether, as the Prime Minister, if he had not considered using the various resources at his disposal to clarify, counter, engage Ngerng in dialogue, or requested for him to amend his article, before reaching for the legal route. “Defamation has been committed – if there had been no breach, then dialogue can take place,” replied PM Lee.

• “With great power comes great responsibility,” said Ngerng, pointing out that if PM Lee had only resorted to legal means to resolve the alleged defamation, then it “shows recklessness in how the law was being used (by the PM)”. “If the Prime Minister himself has been reckless, why should I take the full responsibility for his reputation?”

• When Ngerng asked on another occasion if PM Lee was suing him in his personal of official capacity, Judge Lee offered the explanation that while the PM was suing in his individual capacity, the issue of damages to be awarded would also depend on factors such as their position in life, standing in society and occupation.

• Towards the end of the questioning, Ngerng compared the apology that PM Lee made towards the end of hustings at the 2011 general elections with the various apologies that he has issued following the filing of the defamation suit. “Saying sorry would have been enough, but that was not what you did,” retorted PM Lee.

Also read TOC’s report on Ngerng’s cross-examination of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

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

改革必须“由下而上” 基层工作繁琐,但肯定有效

谈及现今政治组织在推动改革和抵御强人领导影响力的角色,历史学者覃炳鑫博士认为,除了工具变了,现在的政治组织经历多个世纪,差异不大– 召集群众、商讨重要议题,并招揽更多人参与改革。 “基本上,政治组织工作是后勤式的–写信、影响您的同侪、发展壮大运动和说服人民。这当中有很多工作,需要很多耐心,但都是政治的基本功。” 他指出,从聚集小室的一小簇人,再慢慢发展壮大成全国运动,几乎是所有政党的共同点— 中国共产党、人民行动党、民主行动党发(DAP)和巫统皆是如此。 “影响群众、做沟通联络等,虽是繁杂工作,但却无可否认最有效。” 覃炳鑫是在2018酷隆坡嘉年华的“东南亚强人的诉求”研讨环节上,发表本身对政党政治运作的观点。参与研讨者还包括马来亚大学法学系助理教授亚兹敏砂伦、菲律宾视觉艺术家与摄影记者伽罗卡布科和马国人权律师、净选盟前主席安美嘉。 安美嘉则询问,新加坡是否有论及恶法和民主的全国性舆论,覃炳鑫则给出肯定答案,包括他自己本身和好些群众都有参与推动,惟给予政府很努力压制,这类舆论一般不会出现在主流媒体。 他也提醒,即使换掉领导人,如果没有改变体制是无意义的。新领导人浸淫在形塑现有领袖的薪俸和体制下,迟早被陈腐的陋习所同化。故此,改变必须由下而上。 新领导会被迂腐旧制同化 “这是对政治本质进行彻底改革的长期计划,任重道远。人民参与公共议题的讨论,能带来影响力,例如已迫使部长不得不站出来并提出解决贫富不均的方案。我不认为行动党本身很关心贫富不均,他们对民间组织的讨论一般都反应迟缓。” 针对现场听众提问,如果没有强人领导,东南亚国家会否垮台?覃炳鑫则提出,一个拥有开放民主体制、强大的社会和稳健的政治机构,才能产生足以应对挑战的强人领袖,而不是先有强人才有强国。…

关卡通关拥堵投诉 尚穆根归咎人手不足

针对近期兀兰和大士关卡堵塞和交通混乱投诉不断增加,内政部长尚穆根归咎于移民局面对人手不足问题。 但他指出,人手短缺并非只在移民局出现,许多部门也面临同样问题。 他在今天巡视兀兰关卡时表示,在年末佳节期间,每天的乘客量比平时增加10巴仙,在大士和兀兰关卡通关人数增加至43万人。 当局增派人手,单在上周就增加500多名关卡人员加班工作。但基于安全因素,尚穆根未透露实际部署的关卡人员总数。 “关卡人员只能由国人担任” 据《今报》报导,尚穆根告诉记者,移民局人手仍不足,因为关卡人员只能由新加坡人来担任。 他强调,关卡人员都已经竭尽所能工作,在佳节期间,只有10巴仙的职员获准拿假。 针对一些柜台关闭的情况,尚穆根解释职员都是根据实际的需求进行部署,例如出境处通关流量较多,就调派多些人手过去,反之亦然。 他指出,职员根本没有闲暇翘脚,他们可能被调派到人流量更高的岗位,长时间工作。也有柜台改为专门处理罗厘的出入境。 两周前,关卡出现大排长龙现象,有民众堵在车龙中达八小时,一些网民指出,移民局并没有开放更多柜台,来疏导缓慢和拥堵的通关情况。 不过,尚穆根相信运用科技能进一步舒缓和增加通关的效率。当局正研究长期性的措施,相信能在不久后对外公布详情。 此外,他也呼吁关卡职员在年末期间仍需保持警惕,保障通关来往旅客民众的安全。…

The showdown in Aljunied

by Ng E-Jay/ photo credit: Aaron Lim Aljunied GRC is shaping up…

Heng Swee Keat: Port cranes can be remotely operated by foreign tech outside SG; they don’t have to be in SG to compete with you

At a public forum organized by the National University of Singapore (NUS)…