• 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.

LHL kiasi of being cross-examined in public hearing

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PM’s lawyers refute blogger’s claim

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's lawyers yesterday refuted Mr Roy Ngerng's claim that his blog post was about government transparency and accountability, not about the unlawful misappropriation of Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.

This was among a list of arguments they submitted during a closed-door hearing before High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin on Mr Lee's application for a summary judgment on the defamation case against Mr Ngerng, without going for a full trial.

In written submissions of more than 100 pages, his lawyers sought to show that the 33-year-old blogger had defamed Mr Lee by using "the device of association with a group of persons who in Singapore have come to be associated with criminal misappropriation and buttressing it with sensational words like 'dishonest' and 'misappropriation' in the context of the... alleged use of CPF monies".

In the May 15 blog post, he had compared Mr Lee to City Harvest Church leaders, who are being prosecuted for allegedly misusing $50 million of church funds.

He compared a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among the church leaders involved in the criminal case to another chart that he had created. His chart sets out the relationships among the CPF, Mr Lee, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Temasek Holdings, GIC and other Singapore companies.

Mr Ngerng's lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, had argued that the blog post, when read in its entirety, did not convey the meaning set out by Mr Lee's lawyers.

Mr Ravi, in submissions of about 70 pages, said the allegation in the charts was not against Mr Lee but against the Singapore Government, which "enriches itself and its reserves by only returning a portion of the profits made by GIC and Temasek to CPF account holders and retaining the rest of the profits to grow its portfolio of investments into two of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world".

He added that this retention of gains from investing the CPF funds is "legal". But it is "simply not fair to Singaporeans".

Mr Lee's lawyers from Drew & Napier, however, said the alternative meanings were "an afterthought" formulated to advance Mr Ngerng's political agenda.

"He needed a peg on which he can hang his political arguments. That is the explanation for his contrived meanings," they said, adding that Mr Ngerng himself knew he had no defence.

Also, they added, Mr Ngerng had admitted to defaming Mr Lee in an apology posted on his blog and in several lawyer's letters, and had made no attempt to "explain away any of these admissions".

They urged the court to give the "greatest weight" to these admissions in making its decision.

Responding, Mr Ravi said the admissions could not be used to obtain a summary judgment. The reason is that despite the apology for the blog post, Mr Ngerng had not "compromised or settled the action" by paying damages to Mr Lee.

The two sides also crossed swords on the issue of whether the common laws for defamation are unconstitutional.

Mr Ravi, arguing that it is unconstitutional, urged the judge to let the case be heard in open court, "given the constitutional right at stake".

He said that under the Constitution, only Parliament has the power to make laws to restrict a citizen's freedom of speech. But Parliament had not done so, he added.

Defamation cases are currently based on common laws of defamation, These laws, he argued, no longer apply, given that Article 14 of Singapore's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

He added that the Defamation Act, enacted by Singapore's Parliament, has no provision for a person to sue for defamation.

Mr Lee's lawyers, citing judgments made in earlier cases, pointed out that the common laws of defamation are, in fact, constitutional.

They added that Mr Ravi had "missed the point" in his claims about the Defamation Act, and that the Act would have been "meaningless" if people could not sue for defamation.

The PM's lawyers also argued that since there were no legal issues that were "triable", a summary judgment would help all parties involved save on time and costs.

Earlier, Justice Lee granted Mr Ravi's request for Mr Ngerng to attend the closed-door session that lasted for three hours.

The blogger was accompanied to the High Court by his father, mother and older sister. The older Mr Ngerng said that, like any parent, he is worried about his son. "I hope this thing ends well."

Justice Lee will give his decision at a later date that was not specified.

[email protected]
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
If LHL believes that the CPF is helping sinkees, then he should not be afraid to let his defamation trial go to full hearing. Why does he not want to? The obvious is that he will have to be cross-examined and he may not be able to defend himself. Without prepared text, our ministers can't answer questions. That's the calibre of our millionaire ministers.
 
Last edited:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The PM's lawyers also argued that since there were no legal issues that were "triable", a summary judgment would help all parties involved save on time and costs.

Why LHL is so kind to want to save 'time and costs' for Ordinary Roy? Ordinary Roy is all game to take on LHL in open court and willing to pay if he loses. So, why is LHL so chicken?
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Why doesn't LHL answer the question - who is paying the legal bills for this lawsuit? Is he suing ordinary Roy in personal capacity or that of a PM? Sinkees are not willing to sue ordinary Roy. So, LHL should pay his own legal bills.
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Lawyer wrote over 100 pages? Legal thief industry want to bluff.

You find they use oversized big fonts, over-spaced big line spacing, single side copy to make it look like a lot of pages to submit. And charged you a bomb 30 cents a copy, still in their lahlah land when photocopy was 30 cents a copy in the '70s.


Shrink them up to normal 12pt fonts and normal spacing, bet you not more than 10 pages.

The only industry that did not wisht to move an inch. Close and short circuit industry protecting their own shit dirty fees and charges.

Any lawyer know any about your industry as if they are fucking all rounded knows how high-tech works. Then they imposed exorbitant fee know as 'research' and fight your case as if suddenly they become expert in your field.

Also this scumbag theif industry used cheap labour legal clerk to type the document. many do not how to use MS Office one. Hopeless shit bluffing in their own turf courthouse and think they deserved making lots of money.

Dirty scumbag no integrity wage earners 'A Level results >99.9%' think of ways to cheat commoners.

Fuck scumbag lawyers.




If LHL believes that the CPF is helping sinkees, then he should not be afraid to let his defamation trial go to full hearing. Why does he not want to? The obvious is that he will have to cross-examined and he may not be able to defend himself. Without prepared text, our ministers can't answer questions. That's the calibre of our millionaire ministers.
 
Last edited:

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
I believe that Ravi is using the wrong tactic here. he should be on the offensive instead. He should ask Gay Loong's lawyer to show proof that Gay Loong's reputation was damaged. Roy said gay Loong stole money from the CPF. Everyone knows that is not true. They see their CPF statement every month and they can see the money in the statement. Not to mention they are having their mortgage deducted from their CPF account, so obviously their money is there. If 1000 people were surveyed on the street and asked whether gay Loong stole CPF money, I am sure that 999 will say he did not. Than how can his reputation be damaged from this alleged defamation? Ravi should use this tact instead.
 

Bigfuck

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Singapore lawyers are verbal small time punks, not lawyers. If there is nothing triable, there is nothing to pay. Understand fuckheads? So Roy can continue to go about his usual business. Legal letters is just small time punk talk with the purpose of swindling your money in a kangaroo room called a court.
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
I believe that Ravi is using the wrong tactic here. he should be on the offensive instead. He should ask Gay Loong's lawyer to show proof that Gay Loong's reputation was damaged. Roy said gay Loong stole money from the CPF. Everyone knows that is not true. They see their CPF statement every month and they can see the money in the statement. Not to mention they are having their mortgage deducted from their CPF account, so obviously their money is there. If 1000 people were surveyed on the street and asked whether gay Loong stole CPF money, I am sure that 999 will say he did not. Than how can his reputation be damaged from this alleged defamation? Ravi should use this tact instead.

Tell me my good man.

What's the difference between actually stealing and using some means to channel those same funds which you have an eye on it?

Don't tell me the first is just stealing and the second is, you have to add the words ' planned to steal the money with a sophiscated means? LoL
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Tell me my good man.

What's the difference between actually stealing and using some means to channel those same funds which you have an eye on it?

Don't tell me the first is just stealing and the second is, you have to add the words ' planned to steal the money with a sophiscated means? LoL

In order to be accused of stealing, Gay loong has to be in the possession of the stolen goods, ie the billions $ from the CPF. He is not, and we know this because the individual accounts are all available to the contributors and they can see their money is still there. If the money is channeled to GIC for him to keep an eye on, he is not able to steal it without complicity from many more people. He has to be in cahoots with the BOD of GIC, as well as the Treasurer and the Chairman. In this case, all of them have to be accused of stealing, and not just him.
 

batman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Want money but don't want to work for it.
This is the type of Kuai lan pamperd kid who always stamp his feet and cry and then has his way cos
papa and mama is kuai lan rich .
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
In order to be accused of stealing, Gay loong has to be in the possession of the stolen goods, ie the billions $ from the CPF. He is not, and we know this because the individual accounts are all available to the contributors and they can see their money is still there. If the money is channeled to GIC for him to keep an eye on, he is not able to steal it without complicity from many more people. He has to be in cahoots with the BOD of GIC, as well as the Treasurer and the Chairman. In this case, all of them have to be accused of stealing, and not just him.

So tell me again my good man.

So from your opinion, aren't these whole lot of ppl in cahoots nothing but..

Thieves? LoL
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Simply put, the lawyers know LHL is poor case. And just like helping a limb man to walk again upright, face savings.



I believe that Ravi is using the wrong tactic here. he should be on the offensive instead. He should ask Gay Loong's lawyer to show proof that Gay Loong's reputation was damaged. Roy said gay Loong stole money from the CPF. Everyone knows that is not true. They see their CPF statement every month and they can see the money in the statement. Not to mention they are having their mortgage deducted from their CPF account, so obviously their money is there. If 1000 people were surveyed on the street and asked whether gay Loong stole CPF money, I am sure that 999 will say he did not. Than how can his reputation be damaged from this alleged defamation? Ravi should use this tact instead.
 

Cerebral

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
I believe that Ravi is using the wrong tactic here. he should be on the offensive instead. He should ask Gay Loong's lawyer to show proof that Gay Loong's reputation was damaged. Roy said gay Loong stole money from the CPF. Everyone knows that is not true. They see their CPF statement every month and they can see the money in the statement. Not to mention they are having their mortgage deducted from their CPF account, so obviously their money is there. If 1000 people were surveyed on the street and asked whether gay Loong stole CPF money, I am sure that 999 will say he did not. Than how can his reputation be damaged from this alleged defamation? Ravi should use this tact instead.

I think Ravi and Roy is not interested in over turning the defamation suit, but rather using this suit and through the courts to force certain CPF related information out, which will eventually help catapult Roy's "street cred". This will serve his bid for MP later during election.

I hope they succeed, even if they don't, LHL will be on a constant back peddle
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
agree,

such a case is a price catch. Ravi can charge cheap legal cost for Roy and once famous the title of 'Lawyer that dethrone the Son of Emperor Leegime' his price will up.

Delayed the case till GE2016 to see LHL shake head and lose more votes.



I think Ravi and Roy is not interested in over turning the defamation suit, but rather using this suit and through the courts to force certain CPF related information out, which will eventually help catapult Roy's "street cred". This will serve his bid for MP later during election.

I hope they succeed, even if they don't, LHL will be on a constant back peddle
 
Top