Connect with us

Court Cases

Defamation trial: PM Lee questioned on why he did not clarify with LKY in email about 38 Oxley Road being gazetted

Published

4 years ago

on

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that he did not see the need to further clarify with his father on his understanding on whether 38 Oxley Road was to be gazetted.

He disclosed this when testifying as a witness on the second day of the PM’s defamation suit trial against TOC chief editor Terry Xu on Tuesday (1 December).

PM Lee’s defamation suit against Mr Xu pertains to an article published on TOC on 15 August last year titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.

The article contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.

Mr Xu’s lawyer Lim Tean asked the prime minister during cross-examination if he had “challenged” Mr LKY’s understanding of the gazetting issue in an email sent on 11 August 2011.

Quoting the email sent by Mr LKY to his three children as well as his lawyer Kwa Kim Li in court, Mr Lim read:

“I spoke to Loong, and asked him if he intends to retain Oxley as a heritage site. He replied ‘inevitably so given the strong views in Cabinet’.”

Based on this, Mr Lim asked PM Lee if his father already had the impression that the house will be gazetted.

To this, PM Lee replied: “Inevitably so means when the time comes, if the matter comes up before Cabinet, that is most likely going to be the outcome. It does not mean it has been gazetted. There is a world of different between an assessment that it is likely to happen, very likely to happen, and saying it has already happened.”

“My father’s answer accurately presents the status on 11 August 2011, which is it is inevitably going to be gazetted, meaning what I had read out I had told him,” he added.

Mr Lim then pointed out that “inevitably going to be gazetted” means it will be done sometime in the future.

As a reply, PM Lee reiterated: “I have explained to you what I told my father. I have read out the email he sent on 11 August and this is his interpretation and summary of what I told him.”

“It was my assessment then. It was my honest assessment and I stand by it. But if it went before the Cabinet, it is very, very unlikely that the Cabinet will agree to have it knocked down,” the prime minister added.

When asked if he “challenged” his father’s understanding of the situation about gazetting the property at that time around 11 August after Mr LKY wrote the email, the prime minister added that he did not do so as Mr LKY “understood” the situation.

“Because there is no misunderstanding because he understood it as can be seen by his subsequent email to Cabinet in December when he reported the ministers’ views. He didn’t say since the house had been gazetted therefore we will reinforce it and let it out.

“It is just that he has heard the ministers’ views. If the house is to be retained then the following should happen.

“In other words, the house has not been retained, but if it is to be retained then the following should happen. So it is quite clear what he meant,” PM Lee explained.

Mr Lim also referenced an email Mr LKY wrote on 3 October 2011 to PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching, in which Mr LKY said “Loong as PM has indicated that he will declare it a heritage site” and that such “will put an end to any rebuilding”.

The email was also copied to PM Lee, Mr LHY and Dr LWL.

Mr Lim questioned PM Lee whether he replied to the email.

PM Lee answered that he did not answer to that email and explained that it was because he and his wife had “followed up on the matter and we engaged the architect and we discussed it with him — and we discussed it repeatedly with him”.

“Which is why on 10 December he (LKY) wrote that email saying “Ho Ching and Loong have discussed this house with me many times” … We must have clarified the position on the rebuilding, because otherwise we would not have gone ahead with the plans and he would not have approved the plans,” PM Lee added.

Stressing that he has pointed Mr Lee to “numerous emails” in which Mr LKY had “indicated that you, as the prime minister, would declare 38 Oxley Road as a heritage site”, Mr Lim questioned why PM Lee “would not have corrected that impression” when his position was that gazetting 38 Oxley Road was the Cabinet’s decision.

“I have already gone through this many times. First of all, this is not the issue of the meaning which is in dispute, because the question is did I tell him, did I tell my father that the house has been gazetted? And the answer is clearly no,” PM Lee replied.

The prime minister added: “Secondly, as to what he understood about the status in future, he had seen Cabinet, I had explained it to him, and he was under no misapprehension in 2011 and early 2012 as to what the status would be, was or would be.”

Both PM Lee’s and Mr Xu’s sides are expected to send written submissions to the court in January.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
11 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Court Cases

3 Chinese nationals linked to global cybercrime syndicate face new charges in Singapore

New charges were filed on 8 October against three Chinese nationals linked to an alleged global cybercrime syndicate in Singapore. One suspect faces allegations of receiving S$11.6 million from “Biao Ge,” purportedly used for the upkeep and expenses of the group. The nationals entered Singapore on construction work passes but reportedly did not stay at their registered workplaces.

Published

2 days ago

on

9 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: New charges were tendered on Tuesday (8 October 2024) against three Chinese nationals implicated in an alleged global cybercrime syndicate based in Singapore.

The latest revelations indicate a flow of funds amounting to approximately S$11.6 million (US$8.9 million) dedicated to the upkeep of the group and its connections to South Korea.

As reported by CNA, the court records, charge sheets, and a prior press statement jointly issued by the police and the Internal Security Department (ISD) outline that the trio is part of a larger group of seven men, all Chinese nationals except one Singaporean.

According to a police statement issued on 10 September, The group is accused of operating from a bungalow in Mount Sinai and is believed to be linked to a global syndicate involved in cybercrime activities.

Authorities seized laptops and devices from the suspects, which contained credentials to access Internet servers associated with known hacker groups, stolen data belonging to foreign victims, computer hacking tools exploiting vulnerabilities in Internet servers, and specialised software to control malware.

The Chinese nationals reportedly gained entry into Singapore with work passes intended for construction work but allegedly did not stay at their registered employer’s workplace.

The suspects were apprehended on 9 September in simultaneous island-wide raids conducted by approximately 160 officers from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and ISD.

The seven accused men are: Sun Jiao, 42, Zhang Qingqiao, 38, Chen Yiren, 42, Yan Peijian, 38, Huang Qin Zheng, 35, Liu Yuqi, 32, and Singaporean Goh Shi Yong, 34. The three men receiving fresh charges on Tuesday are Sun, Zhang, and Chen.

Chen Allegedly Received S$11.6 Million for Criminal Group’s Expenses

Chen’s new charge alleges he received S$11.6 million from an individual known as “Biao Ge”, which he purportedly spent on the rent, upkeep, and expenses of an organised criminal group, including Yan, Huang, Liu, and Sun.

This allegedly covers funding for the Mount Sinai bungalow. Of the total amount, Chen is accused of having “expended” about S$399,000 on 11 occasions between 2022 and 2024, under the Organised Crime Act.

Zhang faces new accusations of abetting two individuals—Lim Clovis Leslie and Lee Kok Leong—to obtain the personal information of unknown individuals on 28 July 2023.

Meanwhile, Sun has been charged with sending a file containing the personal information of 1,055 unknown individuals from South Korea to a WhatsApp chat group on 12 August 2023, while he was in Singapore.

Additionally, he is accused of receiving 772,500 USDT in cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to co-accused Liu, which allegedly stemmed from criminal conduct.

Suspects Accused of Targeting Websites to Exploit Vulnerabilities and Trade Stolen Personal Data

Previous charges against the suspects depict them as targeting websites to scan for open ports and exploit vulnerabilities, offering to purchase personal information of Indian nationals from gambling websites, and sending a file containing the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand to other parties.

According to a prosecutor’s submissions in unsuccessful bail reviews on 1 October, the Chinese nationals involved are foreigners engaged in syndicated, transnational offences, with amounts involved “in excess of S$1 million”.

The public hearing list indicates that Sun is defended by Mr Hong Qibin, Ms Elaine Cai, and Mr Daniel Chia from Coleman Street Chambers. Yan is represented by Mr Ong Kelvin from Contigo Law, while Chen is defended by Mr Steven John Lam from Templars Law.

Both Huang and Liu are represented by Mr Lee Teck Leng from Legal Clinic.

Zhang is defended by Mr Sunil Sudheesan and Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, and Goh is represented by Mr Soon Wei Song from Goh JP & Wong.

Sun and Chen are scheduled for bail reviews on 10 October. They have been remanded for approximately a month, while the other five men are set to return to court later this month.

In addition to the main group, two Malaysian men, Seow Gim Shen (42) and Kong Chien Hoi (39)  are facing charges in Singapore for conspiring to supply the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand in a file sent from Singapore. They are expected to plead guilty next week.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

AGC announces no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng in Iswaran case

In a statement on 4 October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers announced no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng. This follows the sentencing of former Minister S. Iswaran, who pleaded guilty to five charges, including receiving gifts from Lum such as wine, whisky, and a Brompton T-Line bicycle.

Published

7 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced on 4 October 2024 that no charges will be filed against businessman Lum Kok Seng  (林國城).

Mr Lum, the managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, had been named in March this year as one of two businessmen involved in a case concerning former transport minister S Iswaran.

The AGC had previously stated that it would take a decision regarding Mr Lum following the conclusion of Iswaran’s case.

On 24 September, Mr Iswaran pleaded guilty to a total of five charges, including receiving luxury items from Mr Lum between November 2021 and November 2022.

The items, allegedly given without any compensation, included several bottles of high-end whisky and wine, expensive golf equipment, and a premium bicycle.

The specific gifts from Mr Lum to Mr Iswaran were detailed as follows:

  • Four bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky valued at S$1,084.46
  • Fourteen bottles of whisky and wine worth S$3,255.75
  • A TaylorMade golf driver valued at S$749
  • Two more bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky, priced at S$542.23
  • A set of Honma Beres BE-08 Black AQ MX golf clubs worth S$4,420
  • A Brompton T Line bicycle worth S$7,907.50
  • Two bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask whisky worth S$198
  • A Scotty Cameron Phantom golf putter and two golf chippers valued at S$800

In total, these gifts amounted to approximately S$18,956.94.

These items were given during a period when Lum Chang Holdings was involved in a contract for construction work at Tanah Merah MRT station.

Attorney-General’s Chambers cites evidentiary risks in reducing Iswaran’s corruption charges

On 3 October, Iswaran has been sentenced to 12 months in jail after pleading guilty to four amended charges under Section 165 of Singapore’s Penal Code and one charge of obstructing the course of justice under Section 204A(a) of the Penal Code.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and Mr Lum, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

 

Continue Reading

Trending