The Summary Judgement: Ass Loon Vs Roy Ngerng

Following both M Ravi and Roy Ngerng saying that PM Lee's press secretary lied to the media about what went on at the hearing on Monday, PM Lee's Press Secretary had issued a rebuttal saying that such claims are "baseless".

Read also: Roy Ngerng: PM's Press Secretary and State-Controlled Media Lied About What I Said
M Ravi: PM Lee's Press Secretary Shared False Information with the Media

Read the full statement here:

Yesterday evening, Mr Roy Ngerng said in a blog post that I and the media lied in saying that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”.

This morning, Mr M Ravi issued a statement to the media saying that the following statement by me is inaccurate, and that I have been misinformed: “…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.”

Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.

Mr Ravi said his statement was based on his “recollection”. But my statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.

Drew & Napier’s notes show that the following exchange took place in Court yesterday:

Footnote: According to Drew & Napier, the following shorthand was used in the notes: “P” (Plaintiff) is Mr Davinder Singh SC, “MR” is Mr M Ravi, “D” (Defendant) is Mr Roy Ngerng, “J” refers to the Judge, “AEIC” is affidavit of evidence in chief, “aff” is affidavit, “xxing” is cross-examining, “YH” is Your Honour, “wks” is weeks, “app” is application and “PTC” is pre-trial conference. The relevant extracts are attached.

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?
…………
J: liberty to D to apply within 2 wks, by 31 Jan 2015, leave to submit
AEIC?
…………
J: Might make sense for you to give new aff if only 1-2 docs
P: If D chooses to give AEIC in whatever form, I will be xxing.
J: Until 31 Jan if you have anything you can apply for leave.
…………
MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?
J: Will be a further PTC.
Write to inform the Registry that D wishes to tender evidence
Write in before 31 Jan. Will schedule PTC for you in Feb to give
necessary leave.
…………
J: Liberty to D to apply to give evidence on or before 31 Jan
Ms Yap tells me 31 Jan is Sat
30 Jan?
MR: Ok

From the notes, it is clear that Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages. Mr Davinder Singh then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng. Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence.

This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be crossexamined.

After saying that Mr Ngerng intended to rely on an earlier affidavit as his evidence, Mr Ravi did a hasty U-turn after Mr Singh said that he will cross-examine Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence. Mr Ravi was so determined that Mr Ngerng not be cross-examined that he even said to the Court “Enough Y[our] H[onour] I won’t be filing”.

In his statement, Mr Ravi said that if “the client choses [sic] to give evidence… he will be liable to cross examination. If he does not, he will not”. That explains why Mr Ravi changed his position at the hearing.

As is also clear from the notes, Mr Ravi’s statement that “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” is also incorrect. The fact is that after Mr Ravi said that Mr Ngerng would not be giving evidence, and even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 January 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.

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.

There are two parts to this case.

The first was the application for summary judgment. That application was decided on the basis of affidavit evidence, and the issue of cross-examination did not arise. Judgment was given in favour of the Prime Minister on 7 November 2014.

The second is the assessment of damages where evidence is given on the stand and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. That process began with the Prime Minister’s application for directions that was filed on 18 November 2014.

At the very first hearing of that application, which took place on 19 December 2014, Mr Singh informed the Court in Mr Ravi’s presence that the Prime Minister will give evidence and that any suggestion that the Prime Minister is not to be cross-examined should be dispelled.

Drew & Napier indicated to the Court and to Mr Ravi on at least two more occasions before yesterday’s hearing that the Prime Minister stands ready to be cross-examined. The first was by a letter dated 22 December 2014 and the second was in submissions which were filed in Court and served on Mr Ravi on 9 January 2015.

Finally, Mr Ravi has asked whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary to issue statements in connection with this case. He 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.

http://therealsingapore.com/content...m-ravis-accusations-i-lied-media-are-baseless

Click to expand...

Cerebral said:

I will give if he ask for more money.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

So would I.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

I think you should appraise yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off. I would think Roy does not care about the 90% of sinkies who don't give a fuck. he only cares about 11%. I don't know whether you live in singapore or not, but the last election, 40% of singaporeans DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PAP. Let that sink in. SInce that happened, the PAP has been constantly shooting itself in the foot. eg. allow in pinoy FTs in to insult us, allowing PRC FTs in to shit in public places, mishandling of the Little India riot, losses in Temasek, screw ups in CPF, high cost of living, high cost of housing, FT kids getting free scholarships, etc. This lawsuit is just another nail in the PAP coffin. If 11% of the votes change their minds about the PAP for the next election, they will have less then 50% of the vote. They may still be in power, but their mandate to govern is not there anymore.

Click to expand...

frenchbriefs said:

That's what a loser says,u only care about the 10%,u only care about 60.1% while ur market share slowly erodes away and interest slowly fades.is this how u market to the masses and galvanize the people?how are u going to grow ur movement if forever remain small?how u going to effect change if ur support base forever remain the same or keeps shrinking?Roy has proven to be another sinkie dud like csj.give another 5 or 10 years he would be another broken mad dog like csj.Roy has shown that he could blow 100k while achieving absolutely nothing.waste of resources.pinky has played him like a fool using the absolute lamest attempt with no finesse or skill and Roy can do nothing except bend over and let him poke.and LHL still managed to make him look like a loser.can u imagine if LKY was as hopeless,naive and gullible as Roy how he could have managed to lie his way to the top and dispose of his powerful enemies back in 1960.

Click to expand...

JohnTan said:

The PM is LHL and LHL is the PM. So, the press secretary of the PM can help LHL in his lawsuit, which was about defamatory remarks made about the PM's integrity in handling our reserves and CPF monies.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.

In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He 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."

Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.

In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He 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."

Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.

Click to expand...

Cerebral said:

It doesn't matter whether he is made to look like a loser. At least he dare to stand behind what he believed in.

I may not have Roy's fortitude, but I am willing to chip in when he needs; a little something to make his journey a little easier. This is my silent protest.

Click to expand...

frenchbriefs said:

Useless...might as well go be Islamic terrorists,they have belief too.what's the point of having belief if u can't put together a plan,carry it out and win ur objectives and build an empire?where's ur organization? Where's ur army?even ISIS and charlie hedbo terrorist are more capable than Roy.if I donate 100k to charlie hedbo terrorists right now France will topple.

Click to expand...

eatshitndie said:

the crowdsource funding is to pay off debts incurred in the lawsuit. if gayroy were to use it for something else such as getting bumfucked in bathhouses and boozing around with bum buddies, he would deserve to go bankrupt.

Click to expand...

steffychun said:

Who gives a damn. He chose the wrong country to make noise in. Millions in France and worldwide Je Suis Charlie. No one is going to Je Suis this guy with a skewed surname. Not Obama, not Ba Ki Moon not any world leader.

Click to expand...