Civil activist Jolovan Wham has shared that Mr Lee Hsien Yang, son of late Lee Kuan Yew and brother to current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has helped him to put up the $20,000 security deposit for the appeal that he is making against his conviction by the High Court on a charge of scandalising the judiciary.

Posting on twitter, Wham wrote that the amount that is placed as security deposit might not be recoverable if he loses his appeal and commented, “Justice is not cheap!”

Following that tweet, Wham noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had reached out to him and offered to put up the security for costs on his behalf. He went on to express his gratitude for Mr Lee’s generosity.

https://twitter.com/jolovanwham/status/1130875113035821056

Wham was earlier slapped with a fine of S$5,000 by Justice Woo Bih Li on conviction of scandalising the judiciary with his Facebook post on 27 April last year stating that Singapore’s courts are not as independent as Malaysia’s on cases with political implications.

In addition to the fine, Wham was told to pay S$2997.82 in legal costs and disbursements to the Attorney General’s Chamber. Lawyers representing Wham said that they will be contesting the fines and disbursement fees.

Other than assisting Wham, Mr Lee Hsien Yang had earlier contributed to the legal funds in Mr Leong Sze Hian’s defence against the defamation suit filed by his brother, PM Lee.

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

Reckless Maserati driver pleads guilty to dangerous driving, continues academic teaching at NUS

It was reported last month that the driver of a black Maserati…

烟霾困扰多年,何处是个头?

回溯2016年1月28日,工人党非选区议员贝理安,在国会提问财政部,政府可有监督,国家主权基金淡马锡控股和政府投资公司是否有投资在涉及烟霾问题的公司? 如有,政府投资公司(GIC)和淡马锡,在这些公司又投资多少?又如何确保他们的投资,不被用来用在支持导致霾害的活动? 当时的财政部长王瑞杰作出书面答复,是这么回答的:GIC和淡马锡的投资是相关公司的责任,政府则监督他们整体表现。两家公司“纯商业基础上运作,以最大化长期的经调整风险回酬。至于公司投资决策,完全独立于任何政府干预。 这是我们致力维持的管理原则。” 声明中称,淡马锡和GIC的投资活动,旨在持续性的基础上确保长期回报。而投资在缺乏环境永续性行为的公司,将对长期投资带来负面影响。 “淡马锡已声明全力响应零焚烧的开垦政策,也呼吁油棕公司和业者这么做。至于GIC也告知政府,GIC在印尼投资的油棕公司,已确认他们遵循零焚烧政策。”   从有关答复,再对比贝理安质询,究竟国家主权基金公司有无投资在这些涉及霾害公司?只能说答复是何等委婉迂回,仅表示两家企业“独立于政府干预”、“需最大化长期回酬”、以及淡马锡和GIC都已响应、或确保所投资油棕公司已响应零焚烧政策云云? 所以,究竟淡马锡和GIC,在印尼投资的油棕或种植园有多少?那些新加坡投资的公司涉及霾害? 工人党也配合最近烟霾问题,重新其中一个工人党脸书专页One WP, One…

How would Hoh Kah Leong interpret Goh Chok Tong's resignation after being elected in GE 1991?

the following is Mr Low Thia Khiang’s response to Forum letter on…

Malaysia government blocks news website Sarawak Report

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has blocked UK-based independent news…