-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
The Summary Judgement: Ass Loon Vs Roy Ngerng
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
Source: The Heart Truths
JANUARY 12, 2015
The Singapore Prime Minister’s Press Secretary and State-Controlled Media Lied about What My Lawyer and I Said
The prime minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin and state-controlled media lied about what my lawyer and I said at the pre-trial conference today.
I went to court today. The prime minister wanted the judge to ask me to pay for his legal fees for his lawyers. At the hearing yesterday, the judge asked me to pay $20,000 and an additional $9,000 in filing fees.
This is different from the actual damages that I would have to pay the prime minister himself. The prime minister has applied to ask me to pay at least $250,000.
Today, the pre-trial conference was held to decide on when the dates for the hearing on the damages will be.
However, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s press secretary Chang Li Lin lied about what my lawyer and I said.
The state-controlled media also lied by carrying her statement.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined,” Ms Chang said.
“The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015.
“PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court,” state-controlled media also reported.
However, this is not true.
Ms Chang and the state-controlled media lied.
I have never said that I do not want to be cross-examined.
In fact, I have told my lawyer that I am ready to be cross-examined and to also cross-examine the prime minister.
Not only that, Ms Chang also changed her initial statement.
In her initial statement, she said, “PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
However, she later changed the statement to say, “PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court.”
Why did Ms Chang initially said that the prime minister was ready to be cross-examined “right from the beginning” to “a position he has earlier communicated to the Court”?
So, he did not actually agree to be cross-examined “right from the beginning”?
Moreover, why did Ms Chang and the state-controlled media put words into my mouth?
In fact, I have told the media who attended today’s hearing and pre-trial conference that I am ready to be cross-examined.
The Straits Times, Today and Zaobao were there today. So were freer and more respectable media AFP and The Online Citizen.
The state-controlled media were there today but why did they carry an inaccurate statement by the prime minister’s secretary?
This is not the first time that the state-controlled media has put words into my mouth and attempted to put me in a bad light.
Last year, after my pre-trial conference on 17 July, The Straits Times carried an article and said, “I will continue writing about CPF in the meantime, and (Mr Ravi and I) will fight against summary judgment, to have a full-blown trial.”
However, I have never used the term, “full-blown trial”.
Why did the state-controlled media want to paint me in a bad light.
Moreover, why is the prime minister’s press secretary sending out a statement for the prime minister when the prime minister has taken out the defamation suit against me on a personal basis?
Why is he using state resources to speak on his behalf?
Does the prime minister not have his own mouth or his own hand? Must he always get someone else to do his dirty work?
All this time, the prime minister has the bravado to sue me but he has never had the guts to face me directly in court.
And now, he does not even have the balls to speak out on his own and is using state resources to speak up for him instead.
But this is not the first time that the prime minister’s press secretary is doing this.
Last year, when The Economist wrote an article about me, Ms Chang also wrote to rebut The Economist on 19 June.
“You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng,” Ms Chang said, referring to The Economist.
“This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation,” she added.
“This was a grave and deliberate defamation, whether it occurred online or in the traditional media being immaterial.”
Later, on 17 July, she also said, “Mr Roy Ngerng has admitted that he has falsely defamed PM.”
Not only that, the government has also constantly used state resources to speak up for the prime minister.
Also, when well-known local critic Catherine Lim spoke up for me, Consul-General of Singapore in Hong Kong Jacky Foo rebutted her and said, “Mr Lee acted because the Government prizes integrity as the ultimate source of the trust it enjoys. A leader who does nothing when he is accused of criminally misappropriating monies from the state pension system must engender mistrust in his honesty and leadership.”
When I was sacked from my job at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the Ministry of Health also said, “MOH supports TTSH’s decision as Mr Ngerng’s actions show a lack of integrity and are incompatible with the values and standards of behaviour expected of hospital employees.”
However, when the government was called out for using state resources to speak up for the prime minister, the Prime Minister’s Office said,” When aspersions are cast on the integrity of the Prime Minister and his Government’s policies, an official reply from the PM’s press secretary is completely in order. This is no different from what press secretaries in most other Governments do.
“Likewise, when a foreign newspaper carries an article with misrepresentations about Singapore, it is important that our diplomatic representative defend Singapore’s interests by correcting misrepresentations and providing a balanced view. Our Consul-General in Hong Kong did just that when he responded to the South China Morning Post article.”
However, when the prime minister’s press secretary would now carry a statement solely on the defamation hearing today, is his press secretary replying because of the “integrity of the Prime Minister and his Government’s policies”?
Evidently, this is not.
Second, is the press secretary “defend(ing) Singapore’s interests by correcting misrepresentations and providing a balanced view”?
Clearly, she did not.
Ms Chang lied. The prime minister’s press secretary lied.
She did not even provide a” balanced” view.
The state-controlled media also did not provide a “balanced” view.
The state-controlled media lied.
In addition, when I submitted my affidavit last year for the summary judgment, none of the state-controlled media wanted to report my affidavit but they would report on both the prime minister’s affidavit.
When I emailed them to ask to know why, none of them had the guts to respond to me.
I am appalled that the prime minister’s press secretary and state-controlled media would lie just to malign me.
They are also not “balanced” and have misrepresented the truth.
Also, it is very clear now that the prime minister is using state resources for his own personal uses.
The press secretary has released a statement solely on the defamation suit, solely for the prime minister’s personal agenda.
It is disgusting how the government would stoop so low to hurt me.
Source: The Heart Truths
JANUARY 12, 2015
The Singapore Prime Minister’s Press Secretary and State-Controlled Media Lied about What My Lawyer and I Said
The prime minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin and state-controlled media lied about what my lawyer and I said at the pre-trial conference today.
I went to court today. The prime minister wanted the judge to ask me to pay for his legal fees for his lawyers. At the hearing yesterday, the judge asked me to pay $20,000 and an additional $9,000 in filing fees.
This is different from the actual damages that I would have to pay the prime minister himself. The prime minister has applied to ask me to pay at least $250,000.
Today, the pre-trial conference was held to decide on when the dates for the hearing on the damages will be.
However, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s press secretary Chang Li Lin lied about what my lawyer and I said.
The state-controlled media also lied by carrying her statement.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined,” Ms Chang said.
“The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015.
“PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court,” state-controlled media also reported.
However, this is not true.
Ms Chang and the state-controlled media lied.
I have never said that I do not want to be cross-examined.
In fact, I have told my lawyer that I am ready to be cross-examined and to also cross-examine the prime minister.
Not only that, Ms Chang also changed her initial statement.
In her initial statement, she said, “PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
However, she later changed the statement to say, “PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court.”
Why did Ms Chang initially said that the prime minister was ready to be cross-examined “right from the beginning” to “a position he has earlier communicated to the Court”?
So, he did not actually agree to be cross-examined “right from the beginning”?
Moreover, why did Ms Chang and the state-controlled media put words into my mouth?
In fact, I have told the media who attended today’s hearing and pre-trial conference that I am ready to be cross-examined.
The Straits Times, Today and Zaobao were there today. So were freer and more respectable media AFP and The Online Citizen.
The state-controlled media were there today but why did they carry an inaccurate statement by the prime minister’s secretary?
This is not the first time that the state-controlled media has put words into my mouth and attempted to put me in a bad light.
Last year, after my pre-trial conference on 17 July, The Straits Times carried an article and said, “I will continue writing about CPF in the meantime, and (Mr Ravi and I) will fight against summary judgment, to have a full-blown trial.”
However, I have never used the term, “full-blown trial”.
Why did the state-controlled media want to paint me in a bad light.
Moreover, why is the prime minister’s press secretary sending out a statement for the prime minister when the prime minister has taken out the defamation suit against me on a personal basis?
Why is he using state resources to speak on his behalf?
Does the prime minister not have his own mouth or his own hand? Must he always get someone else to do his dirty work?
All this time, the prime minister has the bravado to sue me but he has never had the guts to face me directly in court.
And now, he does not even have the balls to speak out on his own and is using state resources to speak up for him instead.
But this is not the first time that the prime minister’s press secretary is doing this.
Last year, when The Economist wrote an article about me, Ms Chang also wrote to rebut The Economist on 19 June.
“You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng,” Ms Chang said, referring to The Economist.
“This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation,” she added.
“This was a grave and deliberate defamation, whether it occurred online or in the traditional media being immaterial.”
Later, on 17 July, she also said, “Mr Roy Ngerng has admitted that he has falsely defamed PM.”
Not only that, the government has also constantly used state resources to speak up for the prime minister.
Also, when well-known local critic Catherine Lim spoke up for me, Consul-General of Singapore in Hong Kong Jacky Foo rebutted her and said, “Mr Lee acted because the Government prizes integrity as the ultimate source of the trust it enjoys. A leader who does nothing when he is accused of criminally misappropriating monies from the state pension system must engender mistrust in his honesty and leadership.”
When I was sacked from my job at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the Ministry of Health also said, “MOH supports TTSH’s decision as Mr Ngerng’s actions show a lack of integrity and are incompatible with the values and standards of behaviour expected of hospital employees.”
However, when the government was called out for using state resources to speak up for the prime minister, the Prime Minister’s Office said,” When aspersions are cast on the integrity of the Prime Minister and his Government’s policies, an official reply from the PM’s press secretary is completely in order. This is no different from what press secretaries in most other Governments do.
“Likewise, when a foreign newspaper carries an article with misrepresentations about Singapore, it is important that our diplomatic representative defend Singapore’s interests by correcting misrepresentations and providing a balanced view. Our Consul-General in Hong Kong did just that when he responded to the South China Morning Post article.”
However, when the prime minister’s press secretary would now carry a statement solely on the defamation hearing today, is his press secretary replying because of the “integrity of the Prime Minister and his Government’s policies”?
Evidently, this is not.
Second, is the press secretary “defend(ing) Singapore’s interests by correcting misrepresentations and providing a balanced view”?
Clearly, she did not.
Ms Chang lied. The prime minister’s press secretary lied.
She did not even provide a” balanced” view.
The state-controlled media also did not provide a “balanced” view.
The state-controlled media lied.
In addition, when I submitted my affidavit last year for the summary judgment, none of the state-controlled media wanted to report my affidavit but they would report on both the prime minister’s affidavit.
When I emailed them to ask to know why, none of them had the guts to respond to me.
I am appalled that the prime minister’s press secretary and state-controlled media would lie just to malign me.
They are also not “balanced” and have misrepresented the truth.
Also, it is very clear now that the prime minister is using state resources for his own personal uses.
The press secretary has released a statement solely on the defamation suit, solely for the prime minister’s personal agenda.
It is disgusting how the government would stoop so low to hurt me.
End Of Article
|
|
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
Good good......the higher the better. Use a sledgehammer on an ant. Very effective.
Good good......the higher the better. Use a sledgehammer on an ant. Very effective.
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
Case now is receiving coverage from the international press.
Source: Reuters Edition: US
Singapore court orders blogger to pay PM nearly $22,000 for legal costs
SINGAPORE Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:39am EST
Speaker Roy Ngerng, of online blog The Heart Truths, addresses the crowd during a protest against new licensing
regulations imposed by the government for online news sites, at Hong Lim Park in Singapore June 8, 2013.
CREDIT: REUTERS/EDGAR SU
(Reuters) - A Singapore court has ordered a blogger to pay S$29,000 ($21,700) to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as legal costs after Lee won a defamation case late last year.
Lee won a High Court defamation case against blogger Roy Ngerng, 33, in November, the first time the city-state's leader sued an online critic.
Ngerng was sued for his blog post in May when he was alleged to have implicated Lee in impropriety in connection with how funds in Singapore's mandatory retirement savings scheme, the Central Provident Fund(CPF), are managed.
Ngerng was ordered to pay the amount for legal fees and related expenses, Chang Li Lin, the press secretary to the prime minister said in a statement.
She said the dates for the subsequent hearings - which will determine the amount of damages payable to Lee - are not confirmed.
"At the hearing today, the judge ordered that the total costs to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff be fixed at S$29,000," she said.
"This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgment."
Singapore's leaders have in the past sued or settled out of court with several foreign media publications including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and The Economist for alleged defamatory remarks but this is the first time a blogger has faced such action.
($1 = 1.3362 Singapore dollars)
(Reporting by Saeed Azhar)
Case now is receiving coverage from the international press.
Source: Reuters Edition: US
Singapore court orders blogger to pay PM nearly $22,000 for legal costs
SINGAPORE Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:39am EST
Speaker Roy Ngerng, of online blog The Heart Truths, addresses the crowd during a protest against new licensing
regulations imposed by the government for online news sites, at Hong Lim Park in Singapore June 8, 2013.
CREDIT: REUTERS/EDGAR SU
(Reuters) - A Singapore court has ordered a blogger to pay S$29,000 ($21,700) to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as legal costs after Lee won a defamation case late last year.
Lee won a High Court defamation case against blogger Roy Ngerng, 33, in November, the first time the city-state's leader sued an online critic.
Ngerng was sued for his blog post in May when he was alleged to have implicated Lee in impropriety in connection with how funds in Singapore's mandatory retirement savings scheme, the Central Provident Fund(CPF), are managed.
Ngerng was ordered to pay the amount for legal fees and related expenses, Chang Li Lin, the press secretary to the prime minister said in a statement.
She said the dates for the subsequent hearings - which will determine the amount of damages payable to Lee - are not confirmed.
"At the hearing today, the judge ordered that the total costs to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff be fixed at S$29,000," she said.
"This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgment."
Singapore's leaders have in the past sued or settled out of court with several foreign media publications including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and The Economist for alleged defamatory remarks but this is the first time a blogger has faced such action.
($1 = 1.3362 Singapore dollars)
(Reporting by Saeed Azhar)
End Of Article
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
Whatever legal cost present is nothing compare to $billions of our CPF money locked by PAP.
Dig deep friends, we are up against a tyrant LKY PAP bullied Sinkies for past 50 years.
Never will Singaporeans let another CSJ case which made CSJ bankrupt.
Solider on Singaporeans, break the camel back.
Whatever legal cost present is nothing compare to $billions of our CPF money locked by PAP.
Dig deep friends, we are up against a tyrant LKY PAP bullied Sinkies for past 50 years.
Never will Singaporeans let another CSJ case which made CSJ bankrupt.
Solider on Singaporeans, break the camel back.
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
Noticed at Ravi also gaylek type, Ah Quah.
Ah Quah are braver than straight man.
Ravi know his name is in Singapore history forever. Well done Ravi keep the fiery fight against tyrant LKY the bully.
Noticed at Ravi also gaylek type, Ah Quah.
Ah Quah are braver than straight man.
Ravi know his name is in Singapore history forever. Well done Ravi keep the fiery fight against tyrant LKY the bully.
Re: Ass Loon Lawyers Wants Roy Ngerng to Pay Them $50k in Fees for Summary Judgement!
Lawyer M Ravi takes issue with statement released by the PM’s Press Secretary
Human Rights Lawyer, M Ravi takes issues with press statement released by the press secretary of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in relation to the on-going defamation suit between PM Lee and Roy Ngerng.
It was reported in Channel News Asia that Ms Chang Li Lin, the Press Secretary to PM Lee, issued the following statement on Monday (Jan 12) in response to media queries,
“At the hearing today, the Judge ordered that the total costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff be fixed at $29,000. This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgement. The dates for the subsequent hearings are not confirmed.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court”.
M Ravi, representing lawyer for Mr Ngerng in the defamation suit launched by PM Lee last year, said that the above statement by the press secretary is an inaccurate statement, and that she has been misinformed.
He said that on the issue of Mr Ngerng’s giving of evidence, his recollection is that “when asked, I would take instructions.”
He clarified that it is common and normal practice when a question as to a client’s current intention is asked by the Court. It means that a lawyer will always first verify whether his client will or will not be taking certain action. It carries no assertion either way.
“If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015. This highlights the absurdity of your statement.” wrote M Ravi. “Obviously you did not intend to make this error. Indeed, it is inconceivable that you would wish, as the Prime Minister’s press secretary to be on record as misrepresenting the facts, however innocently.”
M Ravi added that the correct position for the press secretary to have taken would be “that Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that he would be taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.”
He also brought up a question about why is the press secretary to the Prime Minister issuing press releases on behalf of PM Lee who is filing the law suit in his personal capacity.
“Incidentally, as this is purportedly a private law suit brought by the Prime Minister in his personal capacity, can you explain why you as a Civil Servant holding the official title of Press Secretary to the Prime Minister would be issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant? I ask this in all earnestness in order to understand whether you intend me to understand that the real Plaintiff is the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister.”
The court has ruled in a closed door hearing on Monday that Roy Ngerng to pay S$29,000 in total for legal fees and filing cost to PM Lee’s lawyer for summary judgment ruling on the defamation suit between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Roy Ngerng.
Mr Ngerng, is being sued by Mr Lee in his personal capacity for a series of articles which had accused Mr Lee of “criminal misappropriation” of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies, said Mr Lee’s lawyers, by comparing the management of CPF monies by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore – or GIC Pte Ltd – with the corruption trial of leaders of the City Harvest Church.
Hearing of the assessment of damages for the defamation is expected to take place over 4 continuous days in late June, with cross examination of all witnesses in open Court.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/01/lawyer-m-ravi-takes-issue-with-statement-released-by-the-pms-press-secretary/
Lawyer M Ravi takes issue with statement released by the PM’s Press Secretary
Human Rights Lawyer, M Ravi takes issues with press statement released by the press secretary of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in relation to the on-going defamation suit between PM Lee and Roy Ngerng.
It was reported in Channel News Asia that Ms Chang Li Lin, the Press Secretary to PM Lee, issued the following statement on Monday (Jan 12) in response to media queries,
“At the hearing today, the Judge ordered that the total costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff be fixed at $29,000. This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgement. The dates for the subsequent hearings are not confirmed.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court”.
M Ravi, representing lawyer for Mr Ngerng in the defamation suit launched by PM Lee last year, said that the above statement by the press secretary is an inaccurate statement, and that she has been misinformed.
He said that on the issue of Mr Ngerng’s giving of evidence, his recollection is that “when asked, I would take instructions.”
He clarified that it is common and normal practice when a question as to a client’s current intention is asked by the Court. It means that a lawyer will always first verify whether his client will or will not be taking certain action. It carries no assertion either way.
“If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015. This highlights the absurdity of your statement.” wrote M Ravi. “Obviously you did not intend to make this error. Indeed, it is inconceivable that you would wish, as the Prime Minister’s press secretary to be on record as misrepresenting the facts, however innocently.”
M Ravi added that the correct position for the press secretary to have taken would be “that Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that he would be taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.”
He also brought up a question about why is the press secretary to the Prime Minister issuing press releases on behalf of PM Lee who is filing the law suit in his personal capacity.
“Incidentally, as this is purportedly a private law suit brought by the Prime Minister in his personal capacity, can you explain why you as a Civil Servant holding the official title of Press Secretary to the Prime Minister would be issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant? I ask this in all earnestness in order to understand whether you intend me to understand that the real Plaintiff is the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister.”
The court has ruled in a closed door hearing on Monday that Roy Ngerng to pay S$29,000 in total for legal fees and filing cost to PM Lee’s lawyer for summary judgment ruling on the defamation suit between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Roy Ngerng.
Mr Ngerng, is being sued by Mr Lee in his personal capacity for a series of articles which had accused Mr Lee of “criminal misappropriation” of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies, said Mr Lee’s lawyers, by comparing the management of CPF monies by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore – or GIC Pte Ltd – with the corruption trial of leaders of the City Harvest Church.
Hearing of the assessment of damages for the defamation is expected to take place over 4 continuous days in late June, with cross examination of all witnesses in open Court.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/01/lawyer-m-ravi-takes-issue-with-statement-released-by-the-pms-press-secretary/
Roy: PM press secretary lied, MSM distorted facts
The prime minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin and state-controlled media lied about what my lawyer and I said at the pre-trial conference today.
I went to court today. The prime minister wanted the judge to ask me to pay for his legal fees for his lawyers. At the hearing in the morning, the judge asked me to pay $20,000 and an additional $9,000 in filing fees.
This is different from the actual damages that I would have to pay the prime minister himself. The prime minister has applied to ask me to pay at least $250,000 to him.
Today, the pre-trial conference was also held to decide on when the dates for the hearing on the damages will be.
However, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s press secretary Chang Li Lin lied about what my lawyer and I said.
The state-controlled media also lied by carrying her statement.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined,” Ms Chang said.
“The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015.
“PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court,” state-controlled media also reported.
However, this is not true.
Ms Chang and the state-controlled media lied.
I have never said that I do not want to be cross-examined.
In fact, I have told my lawyer that I am ready to be cross-examined and to also cross-examine the prime minister.
Not only that, Ms Chang also changed her initial statement.
In her initial statement, she said...http://thehearttruths.com/2015/01/1...d-media-lied-about-what-my-lawyer-and-i-said/
The prime minister’s press secretary Chang Li Lin and state-controlled media lied about what my lawyer and I said at the pre-trial conference today.
I went to court today. The prime minister wanted the judge to ask me to pay for his legal fees for his lawyers. At the hearing in the morning, the judge asked me to pay $20,000 and an additional $9,000 in filing fees.
This is different from the actual damages that I would have to pay the prime minister himself. The prime minister has applied to ask me to pay at least $250,000 to him.
Today, the pre-trial conference was also held to decide on when the dates for the hearing on the damages will be.
However, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s press secretary Chang Li Lin lied about what my lawyer and I said.
The state-controlled media also lied by carrying her statement.
“Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined,” Ms Chang said.
“The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015.
“PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court,” state-controlled media also reported.
However, this is not true.
Ms Chang and the state-controlled media lied.
I have never said that I do not want to be cross-examined.
In fact, I have told my lawyer that I am ready to be cross-examined and to also cross-examine the prime minister.
Not only that, Ms Chang also changed her initial statement.
In her initial statement, she said...http://thehearttruths.com/2015/01/1...d-media-lied-about-what-my-lawyer-and-i-said/
Judge slashes PM Lee’s lawyer fees by half
As reported (‘Court orders Roy Ngerng to pay $29,000 legal costs‘), blogger Roy Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee in a summary judgment last November, was ordered to pay Mr Lee $29,000 by the court for Mr Lee’s legal fees and related expenses yesterday (12 Jan).
Mr Lee filed the defamation suit in his personal capacity against Roy in May last year. The suit arose from a blog post by Roy, which alleged that CPF monies had been misappropriated by PM Lee.
In November, a judge ruled that Roy had defamed Mr Lee with his posts. He was ordered to be restrained from publishing or disseminating the allegation that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF, or any words and/or images to the same effect.
Yesterday’s hearing was about determining how much Roy need to pay Mr Lee’s legal expenses and to fix a hearing date on how much total damages Roy need to pay Mr Lee.
At the start of the hearing yesterday, PM’s lawyer actually wanted Roy to pay Mr Lee’s total legal costs of $49,027.61. This sum included the some $9,000 court filing fees. Hence, Mr Lee was asking for some $40,000 to cover his lawyer’s own fees.
However, the range of legal fees to pay for summary judgment cases in High Court is usually only between $5,000 to $15,000. Roy’s lawyers wanted to settle for $13,000.
But Mr Lee wanted Roy to pay his lawyers for “additional” work done and “indemnity”. His lawyer, Davinder Singh, argued that they did “additional” work because they had to research where the infringing article was republished on the Internet. They also needed to prove that people had downloaded and accessed the article widely, so that they could show the extent of damage inflicted on Mr Lee.
Mr Singh also said that Roy had made the matter “unnecessarily complicated” because he said that Roy knew he was wrong but Roy made the PM prove that he wasn’t. Hence, the additional work that Mr Singh and his colleagues had to do.
Some of the “additional” work Mr Lee’s lawyers mentioned
Mr Singh argued that “additional” work was needed to apply for an injunction to stop Roy from talking about CPF. As Roy was not willing to accept the injunction, Mr Singh and his lawyers had to do “additional” work to prove that Roy should be given an injunction.
Roy’s lawyers reminded the court that the injunction had said that “the court must bear in mind that the injunction should be carefully worded and sufficiently circumscribed such that it would not overreach and thereby infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or have a chilling effect”.
Roy’s lawyers wanted to “make it clear that (Roy) remains free to exercise (his) rights to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution, save for the repetition of the allegation that has been found to be defamatory in these proceedings”.
As such, Roy “should be able to make statements of the prime minister and the ruling party (PAP) so long as (he does) not break any written law”.
In subsequent articles written by Roy following the lawsuit, Roy merely questioned about the lack of transparency on how Singaporeans’ CPF is being managed, and of the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings. Roy did not say anything defamatory or against the law in those later articles.
At the hearing, Mr Singh also referred to an article where Roy had said that “I am disappointed with the prime minister”.
“We have lived in fear for too long.”
“This is not morally right (to sue an ordinary citizen),” Roy had also said.
Mr Singh said Roy was “attacking” the PM but Roy’s lawyers refuted this and said that Roy was merely “pouring his heart out”.
Roy had also talked about how he was made to lose his job and most importantly, continued to talk about the CPF.
Mr Singh said Roy was intending to “destroy” the PM.
Roy’s lawyers countered that Roy has always commented on public matters because these are matters of public concern.
In another instance, Mr Singh argued that Roy kept “shifting” the “meaning” of his articles and changing his position. Hence, the need for additional work to be done.
However, Roy’s lawyers explained that his argument has always been consistent, that “there is no transparency in the manner which CPF monies were invested by the Government, MAS, Temasek Holdings and/or GIC” and that, “the legal retention of profits derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans”.
On the issue of indemnity, Roy’s lawyers argued that an indemnity can only be asked when one has been dishonest or runs a frivolous defence. Roy has done neither.
In conclusion, Roy’s lead lawyer, M Ravi, argued that the summary judgment last year was not a “complicated” hearing. The court arguments were quite “straightforward”.
“If (Davinder) was doing too much work (for it), it should not be (my) problem,” Ravi said.
After considering both sides of the arguments, Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there is no reason for indemnity. He also said that there is no reason to depart from the usual scale for legal fees (of between $5,000 to $15,000). However, he said that the costs should be at the higher end of the scale.
As such, Roy was asked to pay $20,000 to the PM’s lawyers, and an additional $9,000 for filing fees, for a total of $29,000.
PM Lee and Roy to be cross examined
Then there was the setting of dates to decide how much actual damages to pay Mr Lee.
Last year, Mr Lee had wanted to have a closed-door hearing but Roy’s lawyers managed to have it held in an open court.
Mr Singh wanted a 1-day hearing but Roy’s lawyers argued for 3. The judge then said he will decide on the number of days of hearing on 23 Feb.
It is expected that both Mr Lee and Roy will be cross examined by lawyers from both sides so as to help determine the amount of damages to be paid to Mr Lee.
Initially, the court said in a letter that it is only available from July to August.
However, Mr Singh said that he has other trials from July to September and wanted to change the dates for the trial.
He wanted to move it earlier to May.
Mr Ravi explained that he has hearings in May and would not be able to do so.
The court then suggested holding the hearing between 10 and 16 October.
Mr Singh then suggested holding the hearing in two separate parts. However, Mr Ravi rejected this as he does not want the PM to be able to have time to do his “homework”.
In the end, the court said that it could have some dates available at the end of June and will inform both sides of the dates again.
For High Court defamation cases, damages are expected to exceed $250,000.
In any case, Roy reporters at the end of yesterday’s three-hour closed-door hearing...http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/judge-slashes-pm-lees-lawyer-fees-by-half/
As reported (‘Court orders Roy Ngerng to pay $29,000 legal costs‘), blogger Roy Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee in a summary judgment last November, was ordered to pay Mr Lee $29,000 by the court for Mr Lee’s legal fees and related expenses yesterday (12 Jan).
Mr Lee filed the defamation suit in his personal capacity against Roy in May last year. The suit arose from a blog post by Roy, which alleged that CPF monies had been misappropriated by PM Lee.
In November, a judge ruled that Roy had defamed Mr Lee with his posts. He was ordered to be restrained from publishing or disseminating the allegation that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF, or any words and/or images to the same effect.
Yesterday’s hearing was about determining how much Roy need to pay Mr Lee’s legal expenses and to fix a hearing date on how much total damages Roy need to pay Mr Lee.
At the start of the hearing yesterday, PM’s lawyer actually wanted Roy to pay Mr Lee’s total legal costs of $49,027.61. This sum included the some $9,000 court filing fees. Hence, Mr Lee was asking for some $40,000 to cover his lawyer’s own fees.
However, the range of legal fees to pay for summary judgment cases in High Court is usually only between $5,000 to $15,000. Roy’s lawyers wanted to settle for $13,000.
But Mr Lee wanted Roy to pay his lawyers for “additional” work done and “indemnity”. His lawyer, Davinder Singh, argued that they did “additional” work because they had to research where the infringing article was republished on the Internet. They also needed to prove that people had downloaded and accessed the article widely, so that they could show the extent of damage inflicted on Mr Lee.
Mr Singh also said that Roy had made the matter “unnecessarily complicated” because he said that Roy knew he was wrong but Roy made the PM prove that he wasn’t. Hence, the additional work that Mr Singh and his colleagues had to do.
Some of the “additional” work Mr Lee’s lawyers mentioned
Mr Singh argued that “additional” work was needed to apply for an injunction to stop Roy from talking about CPF. As Roy was not willing to accept the injunction, Mr Singh and his lawyers had to do “additional” work to prove that Roy should be given an injunction.
Roy’s lawyers reminded the court that the injunction had said that “the court must bear in mind that the injunction should be carefully worded and sufficiently circumscribed such that it would not overreach and thereby infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or have a chilling effect”.
Roy’s lawyers wanted to “make it clear that (Roy) remains free to exercise (his) rights to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution, save for the repetition of the allegation that has been found to be defamatory in these proceedings”.
As such, Roy “should be able to make statements of the prime minister and the ruling party (PAP) so long as (he does) not break any written law”.
In subsequent articles written by Roy following the lawsuit, Roy merely questioned about the lack of transparency on how Singaporeans’ CPF is being managed, and of the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings. Roy did not say anything defamatory or against the law in those later articles.
At the hearing, Mr Singh also referred to an article where Roy had said that “I am disappointed with the prime minister”.
“We have lived in fear for too long.”
“This is not morally right (to sue an ordinary citizen),” Roy had also said.
Mr Singh said Roy was “attacking” the PM but Roy’s lawyers refuted this and said that Roy was merely “pouring his heart out”.
Roy had also talked about how he was made to lose his job and most importantly, continued to talk about the CPF.
Mr Singh said Roy was intending to “destroy” the PM.
Roy’s lawyers countered that Roy has always commented on public matters because these are matters of public concern.
In another instance, Mr Singh argued that Roy kept “shifting” the “meaning” of his articles and changing his position. Hence, the need for additional work to be done.
However, Roy’s lawyers explained that his argument has always been consistent, that “there is no transparency in the manner which CPF monies were invested by the Government, MAS, Temasek Holdings and/or GIC” and that, “the legal retention of profits derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans”.
On the issue of indemnity, Roy’s lawyers argued that an indemnity can only be asked when one has been dishonest or runs a frivolous defence. Roy has done neither.
In conclusion, Roy’s lead lawyer, M Ravi, argued that the summary judgment last year was not a “complicated” hearing. The court arguments were quite “straightforward”.
“If (Davinder) was doing too much work (for it), it should not be (my) problem,” Ravi said.
After considering both sides of the arguments, Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there is no reason for indemnity. He also said that there is no reason to depart from the usual scale for legal fees (of between $5,000 to $15,000). However, he said that the costs should be at the higher end of the scale.
As such, Roy was asked to pay $20,000 to the PM’s lawyers, and an additional $9,000 for filing fees, for a total of $29,000.
PM Lee and Roy to be cross examined
Then there was the setting of dates to decide how much actual damages to pay Mr Lee.
Last year, Mr Lee had wanted to have a closed-door hearing but Roy’s lawyers managed to have it held in an open court.
Mr Singh wanted a 1-day hearing but Roy’s lawyers argued for 3. The judge then said he will decide on the number of days of hearing on 23 Feb.
It is expected that both Mr Lee and Roy will be cross examined by lawyers from both sides so as to help determine the amount of damages to be paid to Mr Lee.
Initially, the court said in a letter that it is only available from July to August.
However, Mr Singh said that he has other trials from July to September and wanted to change the dates for the trial.
He wanted to move it earlier to May.
Mr Ravi explained that he has hearings in May and would not be able to do so.
The court then suggested holding the hearing between 10 and 16 October.
Mr Singh then suggested holding the hearing in two separate parts. However, Mr Ravi rejected this as he does not want the PM to be able to have time to do his “homework”.
In the end, the court said that it could have some dates available at the end of June and will inform both sides of the dates again.
For High Court defamation cases, damages are expected to exceed $250,000.
In any case, Roy reporters at the end of yesterday’s three-hour closed-door hearing...http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/judge-slashes-pm-lees-lawyer-fees-by-half/
Re: Roy: PM press secretary lied, MSM distorted facts
One of Mr Ravi's colleagues wrote in to debunk the lies that LHL's press secretary wrote to the state-controlled media.
The said written communication is reproduced in full on TR Emeritus' website.
With this expose, it's obvious our state-controlled media did not cross-reference facts before publishing lies and one-sided viewpoints.
Moreover the action of our SCM in this instance clearly demonstrates that our media are really controlled by the state.
Do you still trust our state-controlled media to be the conduit of truth?
One of Mr Ravi's colleagues wrote in to debunk the lies that LHL's press secretary wrote to the state-controlled media.
The said written communication is reproduced in full on TR Emeritus' website.
With this expose, it's obvious our state-controlled media did not cross-reference facts before publishing lies and one-sided viewpoints.
Moreover the action of our SCM in this instance clearly demonstrates that our media are really controlled by the state.
Do you still trust our state-controlled media to be the conduit of truth?
Last edited:
Re: Roy: PM press secretary lied, MSM distorted facts
Dear Prime Minister Press Secretary,
You are reported to have issued a statement today stating inter alia that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
This is an inaccurate statement, and as I am the lawyer referred to and was present and you were not present it appears you have been misinformed.
On the issue of Mr. Ngerng’s (my client’s) giving evidence my recollection is that I said, when asked, I would take instructions. This is common and normal practice when a question as to a client’s current intention is asked by the Court. It means that a lawyer will always first verify whether his client will or will not be taking certain action. It carries no assertion either way.
If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015. This highlights the absurdity of your statement.
In any event being cross examined is not a matter of choice. The issue is whether the client chooses to give evidence. If he does, he will be liable to cross examination . If he does not, he will not. Your statement that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined is therefore silly.
Obviously you did not intend to make this error. Indeed, it is inconceivable that you would wish, as the Prime Minister’s press secretary to be on record as misrepresenting the facts, however innocently.
The correct position is that Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that he would be taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.
Incidentally, as this is purportedly a private law suit brought by the Prime Minister in his personal capacity, can you explain why you as a Civil Servant holding the official title of Press Secretary to the Prime Minister would be issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant? I ask this in all earnestness in order to understand whether you intend me to understand that the real Plaintiff is the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister.
Yours faithfully,
Yeo Yao Hui Charles
Trainee
L F Violet Netto
For and on behalf of Mr M Ravi, Counsel for Roy Ngerng
www.mravipractice.com
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/pms-press-secretary-issues-erroneous-statement/
Dear Prime Minister Press Secretary,
You are reported to have issued a statement today stating inter alia that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
This is an inaccurate statement, and as I am the lawyer referred to and was present and you were not present it appears you have been misinformed.
On the issue of Mr. Ngerng’s (my client’s) giving evidence my recollection is that I said, when asked, I would take instructions. This is common and normal practice when a question as to a client’s current intention is asked by the Court. It means that a lawyer will always first verify whether his client will or will not be taking certain action. It carries no assertion either way.
If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015. This highlights the absurdity of your statement.
In any event being cross examined is not a matter of choice. The issue is whether the client chooses to give evidence. If he does, he will be liable to cross examination . If he does not, he will not. Your statement that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined is therefore silly.
Obviously you did not intend to make this error. Indeed, it is inconceivable that you would wish, as the Prime Minister’s press secretary to be on record as misrepresenting the facts, however innocently.
The correct position is that Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that he would be taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.
Incidentally, as this is purportedly a private law suit brought by the Prime Minister in his personal capacity, can you explain why you as a Civil Servant holding the official title of Press Secretary to the Prime Minister would be issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant? I ask this in all earnestness in order to understand whether you intend me to understand that the real Plaintiff is the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister.
Yours faithfully,
Yeo Yao Hui Charles
Trainee
L F Violet Netto
For and on behalf of Mr M Ravi, Counsel for Roy Ngerng
www.mravipractice.com
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/13/pms-press-secretary-issues-erroneous-statement/
Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
For more than a month, nothing was heard of Hsien Loong’s libel case against Roy Ngerng. Privately I thought the two parties were trying to work out an amicable settlement out of court. I personally thought that would be a good thing for both parties. An outright confrontation when both refused to give an inch and went for body blows would only hurt both badly. None will walk away triumphant but with wounds and bruises all over. So I thought wise counsels must have prevailed and both will walk away with the least harm possible. Then I read Roy’s article posted in The Real Singapore, ‘ROY NGERNG: PM LEE TAKES ISSUE WITH 9 MORE OF MY BLOG ARTICLES TO PAY HIS LAWYERS $50,000 – 11 January 2015 – 1:48pm’
What Roy wrote in this latest article was not what I hope to see. Roy was acting like someone being pushed to the wall and would either scale over or bite back with all he got. It is a case of you want me dead, I will fight you to the end. And Roy has little to lose.
I have a lot of misgivings after reading the article. This development is bad for both of them. What happened? I can only guess that Hsien Loong was given the wrong advice again to raise the stake, to take Roy to the High Court and to demand higher compensation in the process. Assuming Hsien Loong won and Roy is made to pay a huge sum for damages, so what? Roy would be down and likely be made a bankrupt. Or he could go to the public for financial support to pay the damages like before. The latter would only excite more negative emotions and bad publicity for Hsien Loong and his party.
What would these bode for Hsien Loong? I could not see any good coming out of this for him. There is nothing of benefit to Hsien Loong. It would not only be a hollow victory but worse. How would the people look at Hsien Loong in his tenacious pursuit of this case? I am sure Hsien Loong would know that it can only do him harm than good. Then why pursue this case to such an unpleasant ending that would cost him dearly politically?
Who would benefit from the fallout of this case? Definitely not Roy, and not Hsien Loong. It would be like the proverbial saying, when the clam and crane fought, the fisherman would stand to reap the rewards. Who is or are the fishermen in this case and waiting eagerly and patiently on the sideline for the two to fall? Who would stand to gain the most when both parties ended in the gutters?
I must say I am taken aback by this latest development. Why is Hsien Loong forced to take this drastic step and in the process hurt himself more than he could hurt Roy? Some may think otherwise and thought this is a good thing for Hsien Loong, that he is doing the right thing. I choose to disagree. I would advise Hsien Loong to take the middle path if asked.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/12/roy-ngerng-–-the-saga-takes-a-nasty-turn/
For more than a month, nothing was heard of Hsien Loong’s libel case against Roy Ngerng. Privately I thought the two parties were trying to work out an amicable settlement out of court. I personally thought that would be a good thing for both parties. An outright confrontation when both refused to give an inch and went for body blows would only hurt both badly. None will walk away triumphant but with wounds and bruises all over. So I thought wise counsels must have prevailed and both will walk away with the least harm possible. Then I read Roy’s article posted in The Real Singapore, ‘ROY NGERNG: PM LEE TAKES ISSUE WITH 9 MORE OF MY BLOG ARTICLES TO PAY HIS LAWYERS $50,000 – 11 January 2015 – 1:48pm’
What Roy wrote in this latest article was not what I hope to see. Roy was acting like someone being pushed to the wall and would either scale over or bite back with all he got. It is a case of you want me dead, I will fight you to the end. And Roy has little to lose.
I have a lot of misgivings after reading the article. This development is bad for both of them. What happened? I can only guess that Hsien Loong was given the wrong advice again to raise the stake, to take Roy to the High Court and to demand higher compensation in the process. Assuming Hsien Loong won and Roy is made to pay a huge sum for damages, so what? Roy would be down and likely be made a bankrupt. Or he could go to the public for financial support to pay the damages like before. The latter would only excite more negative emotions and bad publicity for Hsien Loong and his party.
What would these bode for Hsien Loong? I could not see any good coming out of this for him. There is nothing of benefit to Hsien Loong. It would not only be a hollow victory but worse. How would the people look at Hsien Loong in his tenacious pursuit of this case? I am sure Hsien Loong would know that it can only do him harm than good. Then why pursue this case to such an unpleasant ending that would cost him dearly politically?
Who would benefit from the fallout of this case? Definitely not Roy, and not Hsien Loong. It would be like the proverbial saying, when the clam and crane fought, the fisherman would stand to reap the rewards. Who is or are the fishermen in this case and waiting eagerly and patiently on the sideline for the two to fall? Who would stand to gain the most when both parties ended in the gutters?
I must say I am taken aback by this latest development. Why is Hsien Loong forced to take this drastic step and in the process hurt himself more than he could hurt Roy? Some may think otherwise and thought this is a good thing for Hsien Loong, that he is doing the right thing. I choose to disagree. I would advise Hsien Loong to take the middle path if asked.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/12/roy-ngerng-–-the-saga-takes-a-nasty-turn/
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
There're NO nasty turns.
All this while I've known what the outcome will be, unless you've just arrived in Sinkieland.
There're NO nasty turns.
All this while I've known what the outcome will be, unless you've just arrived in Sinkieland.
Re: Roy: PM press secretary lied, MSM distorted facts
This colleague of Mr Ravi's, Charles Yeo Yao Hui, is a marked man.
This colleague of Mr Ravi's, Charles Yeo Yao Hui, is a marked man.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
heard his father carrot cake stall increased price not long after he was sued
heard his father carrot cake stall increased price not long after he was sued
Similar threads
