-
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: You are no good lah! I spoke up for you!
who is the lady beside roy?
You don't pitch in to help me pay for the fines!! Next time I diam diam!!
who is the lady beside roy?
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
One bad egg will spoil whole barrel
I in ICAC stands for independent
Not under or subject to political supervision
Sinkieland's corruption bureau is under who
[video=youtube;HyxvhiEcmzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyxvhiEcmzs&list=PL50322BA21C07F269&index=2[/video]
One bad egg will spoil whole barrel
I in ICAC stands for independent
Not under or subject to political supervision
Sinkieland's corruption bureau is under who
[video=youtube;HyxvhiEcmzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyxvhiEcmzs&list=PL50322BA21C07F269&index=2[/video]
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
Icac no have in spore right? In singkieland its all under PMO..
Icac no have in spore right? In singkieland its all under PMO..
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
One only has to look at the money trail. Who is paying the Press Secretary Chang Chee-bye? Is it Lee Hsien Loong? Is it the Prime Minister? Or is it the government of singapore? SInce the Press Secretary is a civil servant, she is paid by the Govt. and hence by default the taxpayer. That means she has to perform govt related work in her capacity as Press Secretary. But the lawsuit by Lee Hsien Loong is not government related work. It is a private citizen suing another private citizen. The lawsuit was not launched by the govt. And it was not launched by the PMO, but by Gay Loong himself. Therefore she cannot be working on the case in any capacity as the Press Secretary.
This brings to mind another major point. The PAP have been in power for so long that the lines of what is the people's and what is their's is now so blurred that they cannot tell which is which. The SAF is a defence force for singapore, but the PAP have used it as a party recruitment force where they can park their selected future politicians in high paying cushy jobs as scholar generals. This avoids the PAP having to pay 6 figure salaries to keep politicians in the party ranks from leaving the PAP. The use of a Boeing 747 from a taxpayer owned airline SIA to ferry Gecko back from London after her stroke is another example. A medical air ambulance paid by Lee Con You should have been used instead.
All these examples and many more simply point to many conflicts of interest and abuse of powers. If the resources of the state in the form of the Prime Minister's Secretary is being used in the lawsuit against Roy, then it begs the question of what else was used. Did Lee Gay Loong ask the Attorney General for advice or resources or ask for their lawyers to work with Drew and Napier? How much govt paid time did Chang Chee Bye spend going over Drew and Napier's notes? Were other staff in the PMO used? Copier paper used? Stationery and other office costs? This stupid cow has just revealed how abusive Gay Loong is in his abuse of power.
One only has to look at the money trail. Who is paying the Press Secretary Chang Chee-bye? Is it Lee Hsien Loong? Is it the Prime Minister? Or is it the government of singapore? SInce the Press Secretary is a civil servant, she is paid by the Govt. and hence by default the taxpayer. That means she has to perform govt related work in her capacity as Press Secretary. But the lawsuit by Lee Hsien Loong is not government related work. It is a private citizen suing another private citizen. The lawsuit was not launched by the govt. And it was not launched by the PMO, but by Gay Loong himself. Therefore she cannot be working on the case in any capacity as the Press Secretary.
This brings to mind another major point. The PAP have been in power for so long that the lines of what is the people's and what is their's is now so blurred that they cannot tell which is which. The SAF is a defence force for singapore, but the PAP have used it as a party recruitment force where they can park their selected future politicians in high paying cushy jobs as scholar generals. This avoids the PAP having to pay 6 figure salaries to keep politicians in the party ranks from leaving the PAP. The use of a Boeing 747 from a taxpayer owned airline SIA to ferry Gecko back from London after her stroke is another example. A medical air ambulance paid by Lee Con You should have been used instead.
All these examples and many more simply point to many conflicts of interest and abuse of powers. If the resources of the state in the form of the Prime Minister's Secretary is being used in the lawsuit against Roy, then it begs the question of what else was used. Did Lee Gay Loong ask the Attorney General for advice or resources or ask for their lawyers to work with Drew and Napier? How much govt paid time did Chang Chee Bye spend going over Drew and Napier's notes? Were other staff in the PMO used? Copier paper used? Stationery and other office costs? This stupid cow has just revealed how abusive Gay Loong is in his abuse of power.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
Roy's objective have never been to topple the PAP or take over it. Your stupid logic is that why oppose the govt when u don't have a political apparatus to take over and replace the govt? That is just stupid. Roy main goal was to highlight the issues with CPF. He has no interest in forming his own govt. He wants to bring attention to the major flaws in the CPF and start a national discussion about it. He has succeeded in his aims. You are imposing your own goal on him. In a system where there is no check and balance, people like Roy are the checks, and they are very much needed.
Before being sued, how many people followed Roy's blog? 1,000? 3,000? 5,000? He had nothing and he still has nothing. He was a nobody with no assets, no property, and just a regular job. Lee Hsien Loong on the other hand had everything, is one of the richest man in singapore, and internationally known. In one stroke, by suing Roy, this moron of a prime minister has now made Roy into a household name. The national press is forced to give him coverage because of the lawsuit. To tell you the truth, 2 years ago, probably 95% of singaporeans have never heard of Roy. Today, everyone know who he is. Many people now know about his stance on the CPF, his research into the flaws of the CPF, and in general Roy has managed to raise the discussion level of CPF. SO, who is the loser and who is the winner? Is the loser the one who had a small blog, largely obscured and now propelled into the national headlights? I think not. I think he is the winner.
Roy's objective have never been to topple the PAP or take over it. Your stupid logic is that why oppose the govt when u don't have a political apparatus to take over and replace the govt? That is just stupid. Roy main goal was to highlight the issues with CPF. He has no interest in forming his own govt. He wants to bring attention to the major flaws in the CPF and start a national discussion about it. He has succeeded in his aims. You are imposing your own goal on him. In a system where there is no check and balance, people like Roy are the checks, and they are very much needed.
Before being sued, how many people followed Roy's blog? 1,000? 3,000? 5,000? He had nothing and he still has nothing. He was a nobody with no assets, no property, and just a regular job. Lee Hsien Loong on the other hand had everything, is one of the richest man in singapore, and internationally known. In one stroke, by suing Roy, this moron of a prime minister has now made Roy into a household name. The national press is forced to give him coverage because of the lawsuit. To tell you the truth, 2 years ago, probably 95% of singaporeans have never heard of Roy. Today, everyone know who he is. Many people now know about his stance on the CPF, his research into the flaws of the CPF, and in general Roy has managed to raise the discussion level of CPF. SO, who is the loser and who is the winner? Is the loser the one who had a small blog, largely obscured and now propelled into the national headlights? I think not. I think he is the winner.
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
This is nothing compared to loudhailer Chee's shameless misappropriation of university postage stamps to send his wife's thesis.
This is nothing compared to loudhailer Chee's shameless misappropriation of university postage stamps to send his wife's thesis.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
The nail that sticks out gets hammered in. Common sense. People need to keep their heads down to work and give thanks to the PAP for the excellent amount of money they allow us to make as compared to our home countries. CPF is great, so much better than bank deposits and we will withdraw our share earlier than you when we leave.
The nail that sticks out gets hammered in. Common sense. People need to keep their heads down to work and give thanks to the PAP for the excellent amount of money they allow us to make as compared to our home countries. CPF is great, so much better than bank deposits and we will withdraw our share earlier than you when we leave.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
if everybody know roy why dont they show up at the hong lim park protests?since the population white paper protest,attendance at hong lim park has been shrinking and shrinking,now its like a scraggly bunch of loser ah pehs and sinkies at the edge of their death still harboring hopes.u mistaken knowing to giving a damn,its not hard to achieve notoriety in singapore but getting people to give a fark is another.roy's 15 minutes of fame is over,now he is finito and he and his mad barking bitch is about to be put out of the circus.his money is gone,sucked dry by a absentee prime minister that didnt even bother to show up and his lawyer.can imagine writing a book for ur children one day,i was sued by the prime minister and he didnt even show up now im left cooking carrot cake at my father's stall while my lawyer's driving porsche on sentosa cove.
Roy should consider taking over the government,sinkies have spend 50 years of their life under one dynasty,now its time for another dynasty.sinkies are used to living under a regime so any regime is fine,communist regime,stalin regime,suharto regime or saddam hussien regime.
between u overestimate the importance of this "political apparatus" during a government change.a country does not simply fall apart during a regime change because all the infrastructure and civil service are already there,the police force is still there,the military is still there,the ministry of education is still there,the housing board is still there and the tax revenue agency is still there and they all know what to do,they are the hearts,lungs,liver of the country and keeps the country going even when the government is in transition.like automatic.loyalty is not a problem cause 90 percent of civil servants are balless and spinless like eunuchs and will accept one master over any master.there may be some die hard PAP supporters u can just do what LKY did,take them out back and shoot them.u dont see singapore falling apart when PAP took over in 1959.even though they were still green and know nothing about running a country.basic services and civil service were left behind by the british.
if everybody know roy why dont they show up at the hong lim park protests?since the population white paper protest,attendance at hong lim park has been shrinking and shrinking,now its like a scraggly bunch of loser ah pehs and sinkies at the edge of their death still harboring hopes.u mistaken knowing to giving a damn,its not hard to achieve notoriety in singapore but getting people to give a fark is another.roy's 15 minutes of fame is over,now he is finito and he and his mad barking bitch is about to be put out of the circus.his money is gone,sucked dry by a absentee prime minister that didnt even bother to show up and his lawyer.can imagine writing a book for ur children one day,i was sued by the prime minister and he didnt even show up now im left cooking carrot cake at my father's stall while my lawyer's driving porsche on sentosa cove.
Roy should consider taking over the government,sinkies have spend 50 years of their life under one dynasty,now its time for another dynasty.sinkies are used to living under a regime so any regime is fine,communist regime,stalin regime,suharto regime or saddam hussien regime.
between u overestimate the importance of this "political apparatus" during a government change.a country does not simply fall apart during a regime change because all the infrastructure and civil service are already there,the police force is still there,the military is still there,the ministry of education is still there,the housing board is still there and the tax revenue agency is still there and they all know what to do,they are the hearts,lungs,liver of the country and keeps the country going even when the government is in transition.like automatic.loyalty is not a problem cause 90 percent of civil servants are balless and spinless like eunuchs and will accept one master over any master.there may be some die hard PAP supporters u can just do what LKY did,take them out back and shoot them.u dont see singapore falling apart when PAP took over in 1959.even though they were still green and know nothing about running a country.basic services and civil service were left behind by the british.
Last edited:
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
The country won't fall apart with a change of regime. Unless the new government does a stupid thing and purge the incumbents in the civil service, police and military, like they did in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. People still need to make a living. The next GE will be truly interesting. I don't expect a change of regime but I do expect to see a new complexion in our opposition.
The country won't fall apart with a change of regime. Unless the new government does a stupid thing and purge the incumbents in the civil service, police and military, like they did in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. People still need to make a living. The next GE will be truly interesting. I don't expect a change of regime but I do expect to see a new complexion in our opposition.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
roy fucked her in the ass very painful,but never give her 150 dollah service charge, and told her to fuck off because her asshole is only worth cat50 along with the chinagirls
roy fucked her in the ass very painful,but never give her 150 dollah service charge, and told her to fuck off because her asshole is only worth cat50 along with the chinagirls
Re: Judge slashes PM Lee’s lawyer fees by half
His name is probably worth only $5000 or less. Take it or leave it.
His name is probably worth only $5000 or less. Take it or leave it.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
Whatever price, say $10 a plate, his father stall sells, you can avoid and choose other stalls, right!
It is purely isolated case and everyone can avoid patronizing it if it is unfair.
However office/ house rental increased by URA or HDB, high COE price, any pappies' policy which causes increase in price would definitely affect all layers.
Any increase in business cost will surely be accounted in unit cost/ price and finally we, consumers, have to pay for it.
Recent case in the North, the religious building and business was awarded to highest tender, which is not a religious entity, but profit oriented company.
It is against the rules and regulations, and why still allowed it to happen.
In the end, the consumers have to pay for premium and high prices charged by the business company, while Gov. take tax revenue, one under 7%GST directly paid by us and the other from the company profit indirectly paid by us as well.
Who will be accountable for MIS-judgement?
Whatever price, say $10 a plate, his father stall sells, you can avoid and choose other stalls, right!
It is purely isolated case and everyone can avoid patronizing it if it is unfair.
However office/ house rental increased by URA or HDB, high COE price, any pappies' policy which causes increase in price would definitely affect all layers.
Any increase in business cost will surely be accounted in unit cost/ price and finally we, consumers, have to pay for it.
Recent case in the North, the religious building and business was awarded to highest tender, which is not a religious entity, but profit oriented company.
It is against the rules and regulations, and why still allowed it to happen.
In the end, the consumers have to pay for premium and high prices charged by the business company, while Gov. take tax revenue, one under 7%GST directly paid by us and the other from the company profit indirectly paid by us as well.
Who will be accountable for MIS-judgement?
Last edited:
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
a small increase in the price of chai tau kway, and sinkies kpkb. sinkies should consider themselves lucky that a plate of chai tau kway is only $2 to $3. even at $5, it's cheap.
a small increase in the price of chai tau kway, and sinkies kpkb. sinkies should consider themselves lucky that a plate of chai tau kway is only $2 to $3. even at $5, it's cheap.
TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
[h=2]TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong[/h]
January 15th, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
[Both comments appeared in: Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court]
Chang Li-Lin, Press Secretary to PM Lee (Photo: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg)
Queen’s Cow Sir!:
January 14, 2015 at 11:44 pm (Quote)
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 ?
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 ??
Editor’s note: Ms Chang has authored a few books when she was previously working at the Institute of Policy Studies. According to her biography on Amazon [Link]:
[h=2]TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong[/h]
[Both comments appeared in: Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court]
Queen’s Cow Sir!:
January 14, 2015 at 11:44 pm (Quote)
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.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?
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 ??
Editor’s note: Ms Chang has authored a few books when she was previously working at the Institute of Policy Studies. According to her biography on Amazon [Link]:
Ms Li Lin CHANG is the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister. She is also the co-editor of The Little Red Dot Series, and other publications. She has written on Singapore’s international relations and domestic issues. Prior to her current appointment, she was the Deputy Director (Public Affairs), Institute of Policy Studies, at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. She spent more than 15 years at IPS, as an administrator and researcher. She has a Masters in International Relations from University of Kent at Canterbury, and a BA in Sociology and International Relations from University of Reading.
Re: TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
[h=2]Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court[/h]
January 14th, 2015 |
Author: Editorial
PM Lee’s Press Secretary Chang Li Lin has responded to the
latest comments by blogger Roy Ngerng’s lawyer M Ravi.
In Mr Ravi’s statement released earlier today (14 Jan), he said that the
notes from Drew & Napier, which Ms Chang based her arguments on, are best
described as abbreviated jottings in the usual type of legal short-hand (‘Ravi: Ms Chang’s notes confirm what I didn’t say‘).
However, Mr Ravi countered that the notes did not say that “Mr Ngerng’s
lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be
cross-examined.”
“Indeed the jottings nowhere use any language such as ‘did not want to be
cross-examined’ or anything like it,” Mr Ravi added.
The Drew & Napier jottings referred to 2 interjections by Mr Lee’s lawyer
made immediately after Mr Ravi’s reference to Roy giving evidence:
P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: I will be xxing [cross-examining] if standing
as AEIC [if Mr. Roy Ngerng’s affidavit is to be admitted to stand as evidence in
chief].
P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: If D [Mr. Roy Ngerng] chooses to give AEIC
[affidavit of evidence in chief] in whatever form, I will be xxing
[cross-examining].
Mr Ravi explained, “As an advocate should do at that point in the forensic
exchange, I moved swiftly to protect my client’s right to have the final say
whether to give evidence in chief (and be cross examined). I felt this was
necessary given the sudden display of fervour of my learned opponent to engage
in ‘xxing’ my client and an advocate knows his client’s instructions are
paramount.”
“I was not taking notes of what I was saying however my recollection is that
I said, when asked, I would take instructions. The jottings provide a
fascinating clue to this when a key question is raised by me towards the end,”
he added.
And that clue is:
MR [M Ravi]: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file
app?
At this point, Mr Ravi was asking the judge whether if Roy did decide to give
evidence, would the Court be expecting a further application.
“This is precisely consistent with my previously stated position that my
recollection is that I indicated at the hearing that I would be taking
instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence,” Mr Ravi
explained.
“Curiously, and sadly perhaps, PSPM (Ms Chang) makes no mention of this key
question in what is otherwise a very comprehensive discussion of the jottings,”
he added.
Mr Ravi concluded in his statement, “The important point – and a point that
bears repetition – is that I did NOT at the hearing say that Mr Ngerng did not
want to be cross-examined. This is confirmed by the jottings. I thank PSPM (Ms
Chang) for producing them and thereby putting the record straight.”
Ms Chang’s rebuttal
In Ms Chang’s reply also today (14 Jan), she said Mr Ravi had “carefully and
selectively” omitted his own words to the Court, and that there was clear
indication to the Court that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. Her
statement is reproduced in full below:
In a statement today, Mr M Ravi refers to parts of Drew & Napier’s notes
to claim that they do not show that he indicated that Mr Ngerng did not want to
be cross-examined.
Mr Ravi accepts that the notes are “accurate, precise and complete”. But in
quoting from them, he has carefully and selectively omitted his own words to the
Court after he said that Mr Ngerng will be giving evidence and Mr Davinder Singh
responded that he would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence:
“MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH [i.e. Your Honour] I won’t be filing.”
In his statement, Mr Ravi concedes that he “moved swiftly to protect [his]
client’s right to have the final say whether to give evidence in chief (and be
cross-examined).” That is the clearest admission of his indication to the Court
that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.
As the notes show, had the learned Judge not thereafter asked Mr Ravi to
consider the matter, Mr Ngerng’s position would have remained that he did not
want to give evidence and be cross-examined.
Despite what Mr Ravi said in court, he has now publicly confirmed that Mr
Ngerng is prepared to give evidence and to be cross-examined at the hearing to
assess damages. The Prime Minister looks forward to that.
[h=2]Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court[/h]
latest comments by blogger Roy Ngerng’s lawyer M Ravi.
In Mr Ravi’s statement released earlier today (14 Jan), he said that the
notes from Drew & Napier, which Ms Chang based her arguments on, are best
described as abbreviated jottings in the usual type of legal short-hand (‘Ravi: Ms Chang’s notes confirm what I didn’t say‘).
However, Mr Ravi countered that the notes did not say that “Mr Ngerng’s
lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be
cross-examined.”
“Indeed the jottings nowhere use any language such as ‘did not want to be
cross-examined’ or anything like it,” Mr Ravi added.
The Drew & Napier jottings referred to 2 interjections by Mr Lee’s lawyer
made immediately after Mr Ravi’s reference to Roy giving evidence:
P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: I will be xxing [cross-examining] if standing
as AEIC [if Mr. Roy Ngerng’s affidavit is to be admitted to stand as evidence in
chief].
P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: If D [Mr. Roy Ngerng] chooses to give AEIC
[affidavit of evidence in chief] in whatever form, I will be xxing
[cross-examining].
exchange, I moved swiftly to protect my client’s right to have the final say
whether to give evidence in chief (and be cross examined). I felt this was
necessary given the sudden display of fervour of my learned opponent to engage
in ‘xxing’ my client and an advocate knows his client’s instructions are
paramount.”
“I was not taking notes of what I was saying however my recollection is that
I said, when asked, I would take instructions. The jottings provide a
fascinating clue to this when a key question is raised by me towards the end,”
he added.
And that clue is:
MR [M Ravi]: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file
app?
evidence, would the Court be expecting a further application.
“This is precisely consistent with my previously stated position that my
recollection is that I indicated at the hearing that I would be taking
instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence,” Mr Ravi
explained.
“Curiously, and sadly perhaps, PSPM (Ms Chang) makes no mention of this key
question in what is otherwise a very comprehensive discussion of the jottings,”
he added.
Mr Ravi concluded in his statement, “The important point – and a point that
bears repetition – is that I did NOT at the hearing say that Mr Ngerng did not
want to be cross-examined. This is confirmed by the jottings. I thank PSPM (Ms
Chang) for producing them and thereby putting the record straight.”
Ms Chang’s rebuttal
In Ms Chang’s reply also today (14 Jan), she said Mr Ravi had “carefully and
selectively” omitted his own words to the Court, and that there was clear
indication to the Court that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. Her
statement is reproduced in full below:
In a statement today, Mr M Ravi refers to parts of Drew & Napier’s notes
to claim that they do not show that he indicated that Mr Ngerng did not want to
be cross-examined.
Mr Ravi accepts that the notes are “accurate, precise and complete”. But in
quoting from them, he has carefully and selectively omitted his own words to the
Court after he said that Mr Ngerng will be giving evidence and Mr Davinder Singh
responded that he would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence:
“MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH [i.e. Your Honour] I won’t be filing.”
In his statement, Mr Ravi concedes that he “moved swiftly to protect [his]
client’s right to have the final say whether to give evidence in chief (and be
cross-examined).” That is the clearest admission of his indication to the Court
that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.
As the notes show, had the learned Judge not thereafter asked Mr Ravi to
consider the matter, Mr Ngerng’s position would have remained that he did not
want to give evidence and be cross-examined.
Despite what Mr Ravi said in court, he has now publicly confirmed that Mr
Ngerng is prepared to give evidence and to be cross-examined at the hearing to
assess damages. The Prime Minister looks forward to that.
Re: TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
[h=2]Ravi: Ms Chang’s notes confirm what I didn’t say[/h]
January 14th, 2015 |
Author: Editorial
“The important point is that I did NOT say at the hearing that Mr
Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”
Roy Ngerng's Lawyer M Ravi
Yesterday (13 Jan), in response to a statement from blogger Roy Ngerng’s
lawyer M Ravi (‘PM’s press secretary issues erroneous statement‘), PM Lee’s
press secretary Ms Chang Li-Lin issued a media statement to rebut Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi was responding to Ms Chang’s earlier statement (12 Jan) that Roy did
not want to be cross-examined:
“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.”
In yesterday’s statement, Ms Chang said, “M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who
was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless
allegation.”
Her statement was based on notes taken by Mr Lee’s lawyers from Drew &
Napier.
“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.
With regard to Ms Chang issuing public statements on behalf of Mr Lee in this
private lawsuit, Ms Chang said, “He (Ravi) appears to have forgotten that, as
the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that ‘the plaintiff, the Prime
Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid
by Singaporeans to the CPF’.
“It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime
Minister’s Press Secretary,” she said.
Ms Chang produced notes from Drew & Napier, taken during the court
session, to bolster her arguments that Roy did not want to be cross-examined
(‘PM’s Press Sec: Entirely proper for me to be involved‘).
Replying to Ms Chang today (14 Jan), Mr Ravi wrote:
“Is Mr. Roy Ngerng prepared to give evidence and be
cross-examined?” YES.
This can now be confirmed on the basis of Roy’s instructions to his
advocates, Mr Ravi said.
“Is it correct to say that I “indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did
not want to be cross-examined.”? NO.
This is an inaccuracy in a press release issued under the name of Ms Chang
Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Ravi
added.
The Saga Continues
Mr Ravi said that the notes from Drew & Napier, which Ms Chang based her
arguments on, are best described as abbreviated jottings in the usual type of
legal short-hand.
However, Mr Ravi countered that the notes did not say that “Mr Ngerng’s
lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be
cross-examined.”
“Indeed the jottings nowhere use any language such as ‘did not want to be
cross-examined’ or anything like it,” Mr Ravi added.
So, where did Ms Chang get the idea that Mr Ravi “indicated at the
hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined” ?
Drew & Napier’s jottings referred to two interjections by Mr Lee’s lawyer
made immediately after Mr Ravi’s reference to Roy giving evidence:
“P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: I will be xxing [cross-examining] if standing
as AEIC” [if Mr. Roy Ngerng’s affidavit is to be admitted to stand as evidence
in chief]
“P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: If D [Mr. Roy Ngerng] chooses to give AEIC
[affidavit of evidence in chief] in whatever form, I will be xxing
[cross-examining]”
Mr Ravi explained, “As an advocate should do at that point in the forensic
exchange, I moved swiftly to protect my client’s right to have the final say
whether to give evidence in chief (and be cross examined). I felt this was
necessary given the sudden display of fervour of my learned opponent to engage
in “xxing” my client and an advocate knows his client’s instructions are
paramount.”
“I was not taking notes of what I was saying however my recollection is that
I said, when asked, I would take instructions. The jottings provide a
fascinating clue to this when a key question is raised by me towards the end,”
he added.
And that clue is:
“MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file
app?”
At this point, Mr Ravi was asking the judge whether if Roy did decide to give
evidence, would the Court be expecting a further application.
“This is precisely consistent with my previously stated position that
my recollection is that I indicated at the hearing that I would be
taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence,” Mr
Ravi explained.
“Curiously, and sadly perhaps, PSPM (Ms Chang) makes no mention of this key
question in what is otherwise a very comprehensive discussion of the jottings,”
he further added.
“There are other points of detail in PSPM’s (Ms Chang’s) rebuttal with which
one could disagree, but I do not wish to unduly burden PSPM (Ms Chang) with
minor quibbles.”
Mr Ravi concluded in his statement, “The important point – and a point that
bears repetition – is that I did NOT at the hearing say that Mr Ngerng
did not want to be cross-examined. This is confirmed by the
jottings. I thank PSPM (Ms Chang) for producing them and thereby putting the
record straight.”
[h=2]Ravi: Ms Chang’s notes confirm what I didn’t say[/h]
“The important point is that I did NOT say at the hearing that Mr
Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”
Roy Ngerng's Lawyer M Ravi
Yesterday (13 Jan), in response to a statement from blogger Roy Ngerng’s
lawyer M Ravi (‘PM’s press secretary issues erroneous statement‘), PM Lee’s
press secretary Ms Chang Li-Lin issued a media statement to rebut Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi was responding to Ms Chang’s earlier statement (12 Jan) that Roy did
not want to be cross-examined:
“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.”
was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless
allegation.”
Her statement was based on notes taken by Mr Lee’s lawyers from Drew &
Napier.
“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.
With regard to Ms Chang issuing public statements on behalf of Mr Lee in this
private lawsuit, Ms Chang said, “He (Ravi) appears to have forgotten that, as
the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that ‘the plaintiff, the Prime
Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid
by Singaporeans to the CPF’.
“It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime
Minister’s Press Secretary,” she said.
Ms Chang produced notes from Drew & Napier, taken during the court
session, to bolster her arguments that Roy did not want to be cross-examined
(‘PM’s Press Sec: Entirely proper for me to be involved‘).
Replying to Ms Chang today (14 Jan), Mr Ravi wrote:
“Is Mr. Roy Ngerng prepared to give evidence and be
cross-examined?” YES.
advocates, Mr Ravi said.
“Is it correct to say that I “indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did
not want to be cross-examined.”? NO.
Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Ravi
added.
The Saga Continues
Mr Ravi said that the notes from Drew & Napier, which Ms Chang based her
arguments on, are best described as abbreviated jottings in the usual type of
legal short-hand.
However, Mr Ravi countered that the notes did not say that “Mr Ngerng’s
lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be
cross-examined.”
“Indeed the jottings nowhere use any language such as ‘did not want to be
cross-examined’ or anything like it,” Mr Ravi added.
So, where did Ms Chang get the idea that Mr Ravi “indicated at the
hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined” ?
Drew & Napier’s jottings referred to two interjections by Mr Lee’s lawyer
made immediately after Mr Ravi’s reference to Roy giving evidence:
“P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: I will be xxing [cross-examining] if standing
as AEIC” [if Mr. Roy Ngerng’s affidavit is to be admitted to stand as evidence
in chief]
“P [Counsel for the Plaintiff]: If D [Mr. Roy Ngerng] chooses to give AEIC
[affidavit of evidence in chief] in whatever form, I will be xxing
[cross-examining]”
exchange, I moved swiftly to protect my client’s right to have the final say
whether to give evidence in chief (and be cross examined). I felt this was
necessary given the sudden display of fervour of my learned opponent to engage
in “xxing” my client and an advocate knows his client’s instructions are
paramount.”
“I was not taking notes of what I was saying however my recollection is that
I said, when asked, I would take instructions. The jottings provide a
fascinating clue to this when a key question is raised by me towards the end,”
he added.
And that clue is:
“MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file
app?”
evidence, would the Court be expecting a further application.
“This is precisely consistent with my previously stated position that
my recollection is that I indicated at the hearing that I would be
taking instructions on whether Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence,” Mr
Ravi explained.
“Curiously, and sadly perhaps, PSPM (Ms Chang) makes no mention of this key
question in what is otherwise a very comprehensive discussion of the jottings,”
he further added.
“There are other points of detail in PSPM’s (Ms Chang’s) rebuttal with which
one could disagree, but I do not wish to unduly burden PSPM (Ms Chang) with
minor quibbles.”
Mr Ravi concluded in his statement, “The important point – and a point that
bears repetition – is that I did NOT at the hearing say that Mr Ngerng
did not want to be cross-examined. This is confirmed by the
jottings. I thank PSPM (Ms Chang) for producing them and thereby putting the
record straight.”
Similar threads
