KNN my uncle think oppies in sg has no real supporters KNN even they vote for them doesn't mean is real supporters KNN for real supporters exist by now you should already see marches in streets of protest KNN
-
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.
[BRACKING] Lim Tean arrested by CAD!
- Thread starter Cottonmouth
- Start date
I used to have a good impression of Leong Sze Hian, especially of his accusations against the PAP. But after he joined hands with Lim Tean, all of his credibility is now down the drain. In terms of integrity, I think CSJ (even though I also don't quite like him) is even better than LT.
Last edited:
After watching the US presidential debate, I realized that LHL would be scared to death to face someone like Trump. The dog needs time to reply by cooking up shit in his head.
Yin Nah Deh! This is even more drama then my keling movies!
Blogger Leong Sze Hian on PM Lee's defamation suit: 'I'm armed only with the sword of truth'
Supporters clap for Leong and Lim before they entered the courtroom.
The four-day trial for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian began on Tuesday (Oct 6).
PM Lee sued Leong in late 2018 over a public Facebook post that Leong shared on his page, containing a link to an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
The article contained allegations that PM Lee helped former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak launder money in relation to Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
Arrivals of PM Lee and Leong
PM Lee is in the High Court this morning and was photographed in his vehicle near the entrance of The Adelphi's carpark.
He is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, and will be cross-examined at the hearing, presided over by Justice Aedit Abdullah.
PM Lee did not speak to the media before the hearing, but he waved to the media who took pictures of him.
Leong arrived at around 9:30 am.
Leong is represented by Lim Tean, People's Voice (PV) leader and lawyer from Carson Law Chambers.
Leong and Lim ran together in the same team as PV candidates for Jalan Besar GRC in General Election 2020.
Approached by both the media and fellow supporters, Leong simply said the following, declining to elaborate further:
Lim arrived to much fanfare, with supporters swarming to take photos with him.
He first apologised to his supporters that the tickets were all given out early, before saying the following:
He proceeded to take a few group photos with Leong and their supporters:
According to CNA, members of the public had queued for tickets to the public gallery from 5.30 am.
All the tickets were issued by 7 am.
Before entering the inside of the Supreme Court, several supporters made up of mostly older men, were clapping to show support for Leong and Lim.
Lim apologised again to the men for being unable to enter, and another lady wished him well.
The hearing will take place over four days.
Top image via Tan Guan Zhen
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Supporters clap for Leong and Lim before they entered the courtroom.
The four-day trial for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian began on Tuesday (Oct 6).
PM Lee sued Leong in late 2018 over a public Facebook post that Leong shared on his page, containing a link to an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
The article contained allegations that PM Lee helped former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak launder money in relation to Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
Arrivals of PM Lee and Leong
PM Lee is in the High Court this morning and was photographed in his vehicle near the entrance of The Adelphi's carpark.
He is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, and will be cross-examined at the hearing, presided over by Justice Aedit Abdullah.
PM Lee did not speak to the media before the hearing, but he waved to the media who took pictures of him.
Leong arrived at around 9:30 am.
Leong is represented by Lim Tean, People's Voice (PV) leader and lawyer from Carson Law Chambers.
Leong and Lim ran together in the same team as PV candidates for Jalan Besar GRC in General Election 2020.
Approached by both the media and fellow supporters, Leong simply said the following, declining to elaborate further:
Lim arrived to much fanfare, with supporters swarming to take photos with him.
He first apologised to his supporters that the tickets were all given out early, before saying the following:
He proceeded to take a few group photos with Leong and their supporters:
According to CNA, members of the public had queued for tickets to the public gallery from 5.30 am.
All the tickets were issued by 7 am.
Before entering the inside of the Supreme Court, several supporters made up of mostly older men, were clapping to show support for Leong and Lim.
Lim apologised again to the men for being unable to enter, and another lady wished him well.
The hearing will take place over four days.
Top image via Tan Guan Zhen
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Arrivals of PM Lee and Leong
PM Lee is in the High Court this morning and was photographed in his vehicle near the entrance of The Adelphi's carpark.
He is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, and will be cross-examined at the hearing, presided over by Justice Aedit Abdullah.
PM Lee did not speak to the media before the hearing, but he waved to the media who took pictures of him.
Leong arrived at around 9:30 am.
KNN did lhl & leong met @ginfreely & signora wong ? KNN time also around 930am KNN
PM Lee is in the High Court this morning and was photographed in his vehicle near the entrance of The Adelphi's carpark.
He is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, and will be cross-examined at the hearing, presided over by Justice Aedit Abdullah.
PM Lee did not speak to the media before the hearing, but he waved to the media who took pictures of him.
Leong arrived at around 9:30 am.
KNN did lhl & leong met @ginfreely & signora wong ? KNN time also around 930am KNN
Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian defamation trial: Lim Tean questions PM Lee on why he chose to sue only Leong
Lim Tean (left in black mask) and Leong Sze Hian at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Gaya Chandramohan)Bookmark
SINGAPORE: For more than three hours on Monday (Oct 6), the Prime Minister was repeatedly questioned by lawyer Lim Tean on why he chose to sue only writer and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, 68, took the witness stand in the opening of the trial in his defamation suit against Mr Leong, two years his junior.
He is accusing Mr Leong of libel by sharing in a public Facebook post in November 2018 an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
Mr Leong is represented by lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean. Mr Lee's lead lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, spent only a short while examining him on Monday morning before Mr Lim took his turn to cross-examine the Prime Minister.
Mr Lim repeatedly questioned Mr Lee on why he chose to sue only Mr Leong and not "thousands" of others who shared the offending article. He also asked whether the Government's myriad actions in debunking the false allegations in the article were enough, and questioned if Mr Lee had to take the step to sue Mr Leong.
Mr Lim said the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, as well as Law Minister K Shanmugam, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had all come out to debunk the allegations.
IMDA, in particular, sent Mr Leong an email asking him to take down his post, which he did as requested.
On top of this, several news outlets including CNA had carried reports containing the rebuttals of the allegations, said Mr Lim.
He asked Mr Lee if he could accept that "a very large number of Singaporeans" would have read those rebuttals and knew that the allegations were false.
READ: Leong Sze Hian files defence and counterclaim against PM Lee over alleged defamation
A SERIOUS ALLEGATION: PM LEE
Mr Lee agreed, but said: "Your honour, when an accusation is made against me as Prime Minister, which is a serious allegation in this case ... the Government has to take it very seriously. I have to take it very seriously, as Prime Minister, as head of the Government and also as me, Lee Hsien Loong, who happens to be Prime Minister, but have to protect my own reputation and standing."
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)
When he was shown an article in which Law Minister K Shanmugam said it was for the Government to take action, Mr Lee said: "Your Honour, that Mr Shanmugam says it's the Government's responsibility to take action is not the same as Mr Shanmugam saying it's not for the Prime Minister to take action himself, which is what Mr Lim seems to be implying."
The cross-examination saw multiple objections by Mr Singh, who has represented Mr Lee in other similar suits, and replies by Mr Lim, with Justice Aedit Abdullah stepping in several times to redirect the hearing.
Mr Lim repeatedly asked Mr Lee why he had not sued the States Times Review, which carried the offending article, and its editor Alex Tan, but Mr Singh objected to this, saying it is litigation privilege.
Under this privilege, Mr Lee was not required to detail what he discussed with his lawyer.
When asked why he sued Mr Leong, Mr Lee said: "I saw the people sharing the article, I discussed the matter with my lawyer, and after discussion, I made the decision."
Mr Lim asked the Prime Minister if he had contemplated suing the States Times Review and Mr Alex Tan.
Mr Lee replied that the defamation was "a very grave attack on the Singapore Government's integrity and reputation and on my own integrity and reputation as the Prime Minister of Singapore".
"The Singapore Government took this very seriously and responded in many ways to put out its statement of where the facts stood, to correct the mis-statements, to report the falsehoods and to take action against untrue statements which have been put online," he said.
"... The Government has to take it very seriously because for this Government particularly, integrity and honesty (are) ... key attributes and principles and values that we uphold and which is the basis on which we have the moral right to govern Singapore and to serve Singaporeans, and to attack that is a fundamental attack at the core basis of the Singapore Government's standing, reputation and legitimacy. And that is why we responded comprehensively by all the means we could."
When reminded by the judge to answer Mr Lim's question, Mr Lee said he did also make his own considerations and consulted his counsel, Mr Singh, eventually deciding to proceed in this defamation case against Mr Leong.
Mr Lim also tried asking Mr Lee about whether he was involved in the Government's actions in debunking the false statements, and when prompted by the judge, explained how it is relevant to his defence.
MR LEONG'S DEFENCE
"Our defence is two things. The first thing is that we say the Government had taken sufficient action to debunk these false allegations, and there was no need to bring these proceedings," said Mr Lim.
"Secondly, your honour, the second relevance is that this action is really an attempt to protect the integrity of the Government, the reputation of the Government and not a genuine liable action for the plaintiff to recover his reputation, and that offends against the rule in Derbyshire (a legal concept)."
He accused Mr Lee of "riding two horses", as head of Government and as a private citizen. Mr Lee said he did not accept this.
"As Prime Minister, I am responsible for the Government. ... At the same time, as a private individual, I have the right to protect my own integrity and I feel I have the responsibility to do so, because if my integrity is impugned and people feel I was complicit ... in (the 1MDB corruption episode), I have to protect my reputation," said Mr Lee.
He added that while he had a public responsibility to ensure that the Government responds "vigorously" to "such unfounded allegations", he also had a personal responsibility to protect his own reputation and integrity by taking legal advice and acting on it.
Mr Lim put it to the Prime Minister that since he gave evidence that the Government's actions in debunking the false allegations were effective, there was "no proper justification" for him to bring these proceedings against Mr Leong.
Mr Lee replied that the question is about how one's name is cleared.
"Many people would believe the Government, because the Government has good credibility ... because the Government has always cleared its name with clear statements and individuals who have been impugned have cleared their name through civil actions, that we are able to say these individuals are straight and their reputations have been upheld," said Mr Lee.
"And the reason why you think that Government statements clear my name personally is because I have a reputation for having sued people who have impugned me wrongly. Not rightly. Not frequently. But when necessary. And therefore, when a serious case arises and my reputation is injured, I have to act. Otherwise, the question will arise - he always acts when something serious is alleged and is untrue, and in this case it's very serious. Why is he not acting?"
Under questioning by Mr Lim, Mr Lee also said the offending post came to his attention when it was pointed out to him by someone that he cannot remember now.
When asked why he allowed the perpetrators - the STR and The Coverage - to "go scot-free", Mr Lee replied that "they were beyond our reach".
MR LEONG'S ALLEGED CONDUCT AFTER KNOWING HE WAS BEING SUED
Mr Lim also questioned Mr Lee on why he persisted in this case even though Mr Leong took down the offending post after IMDA asked him to.
Mr Lee replied that Mr Leong was legally required to do so, and said Mr Leong did not apologise, contrary to what was falsely reported by the Sarawak Report, and later took "every opportunity" to publicise the current proceedings.
READ: Judge dismisses Leong Sze Hian’s counterclaim, PM Lee’s defamation suit to go to trial
This included sponsoring a post by the website The Online Citizen on the proceedings, said Mr Lee. Mr Leong also gave interviews in Hong Kong and spoke at the Speaker's Corner in relation to these proceedings, said the Prime Minister.
"So if someone feels he has been unjustly attacked and sued simply by sharing an article, you are saying he is drawing publicity to the statements?" asked Mr Lim.
"I think there is a legal way to do it, and the correct way is to clear his name in court. But while court proceedings are pending, to proceed in this way ... in extreme promotion ... can only lead me to conclude he wasn't sorry," answered Mr Lee.
Mr Lim alleged that Mr Lee's court action contained a "collateral purpose" to silence critics such as Mr Leong.
Lim Tean (left in black mask) and Leong Sze Hian at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Gaya Chandramohan)Bookmark
SINGAPORE: For more than three hours on Monday (Oct 6), the Prime Minister was repeatedly questioned by lawyer Lim Tean on why he chose to sue only writer and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, 68, took the witness stand in the opening of the trial in his defamation suit against Mr Leong, two years his junior.
He is accusing Mr Leong of libel by sharing in a public Facebook post in November 2018 an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
Mr Leong is represented by lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean. Mr Lee's lead lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, spent only a short while examining him on Monday morning before Mr Lim took his turn to cross-examine the Prime Minister.
Mr Lim repeatedly questioned Mr Lee on why he chose to sue only Mr Leong and not "thousands" of others who shared the offending article. He also asked whether the Government's myriad actions in debunking the false allegations in the article were enough, and questioned if Mr Lee had to take the step to sue Mr Leong.
Mr Lim said the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, as well as Law Minister K Shanmugam, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had all come out to debunk the allegations.
IMDA, in particular, sent Mr Leong an email asking him to take down his post, which he did as requested.
On top of this, several news outlets including CNA had carried reports containing the rebuttals of the allegations, said Mr Lim.
He asked Mr Lee if he could accept that "a very large number of Singaporeans" would have read those rebuttals and knew that the allegations were false.
READ: Leong Sze Hian files defence and counterclaim against PM Lee over alleged defamation
A SERIOUS ALLEGATION: PM LEE
Mr Lee agreed, but said: "Your honour, when an accusation is made against me as Prime Minister, which is a serious allegation in this case ... the Government has to take it very seriously. I have to take it very seriously, as Prime Minister, as head of the Government and also as me, Lee Hsien Loong, who happens to be Prime Minister, but have to protect my own reputation and standing."
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)
When he was shown an article in which Law Minister K Shanmugam said it was for the Government to take action, Mr Lee said: "Your Honour, that Mr Shanmugam says it's the Government's responsibility to take action is not the same as Mr Shanmugam saying it's not for the Prime Minister to take action himself, which is what Mr Lim seems to be implying."
The cross-examination saw multiple objections by Mr Singh, who has represented Mr Lee in other similar suits, and replies by Mr Lim, with Justice Aedit Abdullah stepping in several times to redirect the hearing.
Mr Lim repeatedly asked Mr Lee why he had not sued the States Times Review, which carried the offending article, and its editor Alex Tan, but Mr Singh objected to this, saying it is litigation privilege.
Under this privilege, Mr Lee was not required to detail what he discussed with his lawyer.
When asked why he sued Mr Leong, Mr Lee said: "I saw the people sharing the article, I discussed the matter with my lawyer, and after discussion, I made the decision."
Mr Lim asked the Prime Minister if he had contemplated suing the States Times Review and Mr Alex Tan.
Mr Lee replied that the defamation was "a very grave attack on the Singapore Government's integrity and reputation and on my own integrity and reputation as the Prime Minister of Singapore".
"The Singapore Government took this very seriously and responded in many ways to put out its statement of where the facts stood, to correct the mis-statements, to report the falsehoods and to take action against untrue statements which have been put online," he said.
"... The Government has to take it very seriously because for this Government particularly, integrity and honesty (are) ... key attributes and principles and values that we uphold and which is the basis on which we have the moral right to govern Singapore and to serve Singaporeans, and to attack that is a fundamental attack at the core basis of the Singapore Government's standing, reputation and legitimacy. And that is why we responded comprehensively by all the means we could."
When reminded by the judge to answer Mr Lim's question, Mr Lee said he did also make his own considerations and consulted his counsel, Mr Singh, eventually deciding to proceed in this defamation case against Mr Leong.
Mr Lim also tried asking Mr Lee about whether he was involved in the Government's actions in debunking the false statements, and when prompted by the judge, explained how it is relevant to his defence.
MR LEONG'S DEFENCE
"Our defence is two things. The first thing is that we say the Government had taken sufficient action to debunk these false allegations, and there was no need to bring these proceedings," said Mr Lim.
"Secondly, your honour, the second relevance is that this action is really an attempt to protect the integrity of the Government, the reputation of the Government and not a genuine liable action for the plaintiff to recover his reputation, and that offends against the rule in Derbyshire (a legal concept)."
He accused Mr Lee of "riding two horses", as head of Government and as a private citizen. Mr Lee said he did not accept this.
"As Prime Minister, I am responsible for the Government. ... At the same time, as a private individual, I have the right to protect my own integrity and I feel I have the responsibility to do so, because if my integrity is impugned and people feel I was complicit ... in (the 1MDB corruption episode), I have to protect my reputation," said Mr Lee.
He added that while he had a public responsibility to ensure that the Government responds "vigorously" to "such unfounded allegations", he also had a personal responsibility to protect his own reputation and integrity by taking legal advice and acting on it.
Mr Lim put it to the Prime Minister that since he gave evidence that the Government's actions in debunking the false allegations were effective, there was "no proper justification" for him to bring these proceedings against Mr Leong.
Mr Lee replied that the question is about how one's name is cleared.
"Many people would believe the Government, because the Government has good credibility ... because the Government has always cleared its name with clear statements and individuals who have been impugned have cleared their name through civil actions, that we are able to say these individuals are straight and their reputations have been upheld," said Mr Lee.
"And the reason why you think that Government statements clear my name personally is because I have a reputation for having sued people who have impugned me wrongly. Not rightly. Not frequently. But when necessary. And therefore, when a serious case arises and my reputation is injured, I have to act. Otherwise, the question will arise - he always acts when something serious is alleged and is untrue, and in this case it's very serious. Why is he not acting?"
Under questioning by Mr Lim, Mr Lee also said the offending post came to his attention when it was pointed out to him by someone that he cannot remember now.
When asked why he allowed the perpetrators - the STR and The Coverage - to "go scot-free", Mr Lee replied that "they were beyond our reach".
MR LEONG'S ALLEGED CONDUCT AFTER KNOWING HE WAS BEING SUED
Mr Lim also questioned Mr Lee on why he persisted in this case even though Mr Leong took down the offending post after IMDA asked him to.
Mr Lee replied that Mr Leong was legally required to do so, and said Mr Leong did not apologise, contrary to what was falsely reported by the Sarawak Report, and later took "every opportunity" to publicise the current proceedings.
READ: Judge dismisses Leong Sze Hian’s counterclaim, PM Lee’s defamation suit to go to trial
This included sponsoring a post by the website The Online Citizen on the proceedings, said Mr Lee. Mr Leong also gave interviews in Hong Kong and spoke at the Speaker's Corner in relation to these proceedings, said the Prime Minister.
"So if someone feels he has been unjustly attacked and sued simply by sharing an article, you are saying he is drawing publicity to the statements?" asked Mr Lim.
"I think there is a legal way to do it, and the correct way is to clear his name in court. But while court proceedings are pending, to proceed in this way ... in extreme promotion ... can only lead me to conclude he wasn't sorry," answered Mr Lee.
Mr Lim alleged that Mr Lee's court action contained a "collateral purpose" to silence critics such as Mr Leong.
fucking waste of court's resources to hear this fucking case
Uncle Leong looks steady 
Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian defamation trial: Lim Tean questions PM Lee on why he chose to sue only Leong
Lim Tean (left in black mask) and Leong Sze Hian at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Gaya Chandramohan)Bookmark
SINGAPORE: For more than three hours on Monday (Oct 6), the Prime Minister was repeatedly questioned by lawyer Lim Tean on why he chose to sue only writer and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, 68, took the witness stand in the opening of the trial in his defamation suit against Mr Leong, two years his junior.
He is accusing Mr Leong of libel by sharing in a public Facebook post in November 2018 an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
Mr Leong is represented by lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean. Mr Lee's lead lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, spent only a short while examining him on Monday morning before Mr Lim took his turn to cross-examine the Prime Minister.
Mr Lim repeatedly questioned Mr Lee on why he chose to sue only Mr Leong and not "thousands" of others who shared the offending article. He also asked whether the Government's myriad actions in debunking the false allegations in the article were enough, and questioned if Mr Lee had to take the step to sue Mr Leong.
Mr Lim said the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, as well as Law Minister K Shanmugam, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had all come out to debunk the allegations.
IMDA, in particular, sent Mr Leong an email asking him to take down his post, which he did as requested.
On top of this, several news outlets including CNA had carried reports containing the rebuttals of the allegations, said Mr Lim.
He asked Mr Lee if he could accept that "a very large number of Singaporeans" would have read those rebuttals and knew that the allegations were false.
READ: Leong Sze Hian files defence and counterclaim against PM Lee over alleged defamation
A SERIOUS ALLEGATION: PM LEE
Mr Lee agreed, but said: "Your honour, when an accusation is made against me as Prime Minister, which is a serious allegation in this case ... the Government has to take it very seriously. I have to take it very seriously, as Prime Minister, as head of the Government and also as me, Lee Hsien Loong, who happens to be Prime Minister, but have to protect my own reputation and standing."
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)
When he was shown an article in which Law Minister K Shanmugam said it was for the Government to take action, Mr Lee said: "Your Honour, that Mr Shanmugam says it's the Government's responsibility to take action is not the same as Mr Shanmugam saying it's not for the Prime Minister to take action himself, which is what Mr Lim seems to be implying."
The cross-examination saw multiple objections by Mr Singh, who has represented Mr Lee in other similar suits, and replies by Mr Lim, with Justice Aedit Abdullah stepping in several times to redirect the hearing.
Mr Lim repeatedly asked Mr Lee why he had not sued the States Times Review, which carried the offending article, and its editor Alex Tan, but Mr Singh objected to this, saying it is litigation privilege.
Under this privilege, Mr Lee was not required to detail what he discussed with his lawyer.
When asked why he sued Mr Leong, Mr Lee said: "I saw the people sharing the article, I discussed the matter with my lawyer, and after discussion, I made the decision."
Mr Lim asked the Prime Minister if he had contemplated suing the States Times Review and Mr Alex Tan.
Mr Lee replied that the defamation was "a very grave attack on the Singapore Government's integrity and reputation and on my own integrity and reputation as the Prime Minister of Singapore".
"The Singapore Government took this very seriously and responded in many ways to put out its statement of where the facts stood, to correct the mis-statements, to report the falsehoods and to take action against untrue statements which have been put online," he said.
"... The Government has to take it very seriously because for this Government particularly, integrity and honesty (are) ... key attributes and principles and values that we uphold and which is the basis on which we have the moral right to govern Singapore and to serve Singaporeans, and to attack that is a fundamental attack at the core basis of the Singapore Government's standing, reputation and legitimacy. And that is why we responded comprehensively by all the means we could."
When reminded by the judge to answer Mr Lim's question, Mr Lee said he did also make his own considerations and consulted his counsel, Mr Singh, eventually deciding to proceed in this defamation case against Mr Leong.
Mr Lim also tried asking Mr Lee about whether he was involved in the Government's actions in debunking the false statements, and when prompted by the judge, explained how it is relevant to his defence.
MR LEONG'S DEFENCE
"Our defence is two things. The first thing is that we say the Government had taken sufficient action to debunk these false allegations, and there was no need to bring these proceedings," said Mr Lim.
"Secondly, your honour, the second relevance is that this action is really an attempt to protect the integrity of the Government, the reputation of the Government and not a genuine liable action for the plaintiff to recover his reputation, and that offends against the rule in Derbyshire (a legal concept)."
He accused Mr Lee of "riding two horses", as head of Government and as a private citizen. Mr Lee said he did not accept this.
"As Prime Minister, I am responsible for the Government. ... At the same time, as a private individual, I have the right to protect my own integrity and I feel I have the responsibility to do so, because if my integrity is impugned and people feel I was complicit ... in (the 1MDB corruption episode), I have to protect my reputation," said Mr Lee.
He added that while he had a public responsibility to ensure that the Government responds "vigorously" to "such unfounded allegations", he also had a personal responsibility to protect his own reputation and integrity by taking legal advice and acting on it.
Mr Lim put it to the Prime Minister that since he gave evidence that the Government's actions in debunking the false allegations were effective, there was "no proper justification" for him to bring these proceedings against Mr Leong.
Mr Lee replied that the question is about how one's name is cleared.
"Many people would believe the Government, because the Government has good credibility ... because the Government has always cleared its name with clear statements and individuals who have been impugned have cleared their name through civil actions, that we are able to say these individuals are straight and their reputations have been upheld," said Mr Lee.
"And the reason why you think that Government statements clear my name personally is because I have a reputation for having sued people who have impugned me wrongly. Not rightly. Not frequently. But when necessary. And therefore, when a serious case arises and my reputation is injured, I have to act. Otherwise, the question will arise - he always acts when something serious is alleged and is untrue, and in this case it's very serious. Why is he not acting?"
Under questioning by Mr Lim, Mr Lee also said the offending post came to his attention when it was pointed out to him by someone that he cannot remember now.
When asked why he allowed the perpetrators - the STR and The Coverage - to "go scot-free", Mr Lee replied that "they were beyond our reach".
MR LEONG'S ALLEGED CONDUCT AFTER KNOWING HE WAS BEING SUED
Mr Lim also questioned Mr Lee on why he persisted in this case even though Mr Leong took down the offending post after IMDA asked him to.
Mr Lee replied that Mr Leong was legally required to do so, and said Mr Leong did not apologise, contrary to what was falsely reported by the Sarawak Report, and later took "every opportunity" to publicise the current proceedings.
READ: Judge dismisses Leong Sze Hian’s counterclaim, PM Lee’s defamation suit to go to trial
This included sponsoring a post by the website The Online Citizen on the proceedings, said Mr Lee. Mr Leong also gave interviews in Hong Kong and spoke at the Speaker's Corner in relation to these proceedings, said the Prime Minister.
"So if someone feels he has been unjustly attacked and sued simply by sharing an article, you are saying he is drawing publicity to the statements?" asked Mr Lim.
"I think there is a legal way to do it, and the correct way is to clear his name in court. But while court proceedings are pending, to proceed in this way ... in extreme promotion ... can only lead me to conclude he wasn't sorry," answered Mr Lee.
Mr Lim alleged that Mr Lee's court action contained a "collateral purpose" to silence critics such as Mr Leong.
Lim Tean (left in black mask) and Leong Sze Hian at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Gaya Chandramohan)Bookmark
SINGAPORE: For more than three hours on Monday (Oct 6), the Prime Minister was repeatedly questioned by lawyer Lim Tean on why he chose to sue only writer and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, 68, took the witness stand in the opening of the trial in his defamation suit against Mr Leong, two years his junior.
He is accusing Mr Leong of libel by sharing in a public Facebook post in November 2018 an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.
Mr Leong is represented by lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean. Mr Lee's lead lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, spent only a short while examining him on Monday morning before Mr Lim took his turn to cross-examine the Prime Minister.
Mr Lim repeatedly questioned Mr Lee on why he chose to sue only Mr Leong and not "thousands" of others who shared the offending article. He also asked whether the Government's myriad actions in debunking the false allegations in the article were enough, and questioned if Mr Lee had to take the step to sue Mr Leong.
Mr Lim said the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, as well as Law Minister K Shanmugam, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had all come out to debunk the allegations.
IMDA, in particular, sent Mr Leong an email asking him to take down his post, which he did as requested.
On top of this, several news outlets including CNA had carried reports containing the rebuttals of the allegations, said Mr Lim.
He asked Mr Lee if he could accept that "a very large number of Singaporeans" would have read those rebuttals and knew that the allegations were false.
READ: Leong Sze Hian files defence and counterclaim against PM Lee over alleged defamation
A SERIOUS ALLEGATION: PM LEE
Mr Lee agreed, but said: "Your honour, when an accusation is made against me as Prime Minister, which is a serious allegation in this case ... the Government has to take it very seriously. I have to take it very seriously, as Prime Minister, as head of the Government and also as me, Lee Hsien Loong, who happens to be Prime Minister, but have to protect my own reputation and standing."
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arriving at the High Court on Oct 6, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)
When he was shown an article in which Law Minister K Shanmugam said it was for the Government to take action, Mr Lee said: "Your Honour, that Mr Shanmugam says it's the Government's responsibility to take action is not the same as Mr Shanmugam saying it's not for the Prime Minister to take action himself, which is what Mr Lim seems to be implying."
The cross-examination saw multiple objections by Mr Singh, who has represented Mr Lee in other similar suits, and replies by Mr Lim, with Justice Aedit Abdullah stepping in several times to redirect the hearing.
Mr Lim repeatedly asked Mr Lee why he had not sued the States Times Review, which carried the offending article, and its editor Alex Tan, but Mr Singh objected to this, saying it is litigation privilege.
Under this privilege, Mr Lee was not required to detail what he discussed with his lawyer.
When asked why he sued Mr Leong, Mr Lee said: "I saw the people sharing the article, I discussed the matter with my lawyer, and after discussion, I made the decision."
Mr Lim asked the Prime Minister if he had contemplated suing the States Times Review and Mr Alex Tan.
Mr Lee replied that the defamation was "a very grave attack on the Singapore Government's integrity and reputation and on my own integrity and reputation as the Prime Minister of Singapore".
"The Singapore Government took this very seriously and responded in many ways to put out its statement of where the facts stood, to correct the mis-statements, to report the falsehoods and to take action against untrue statements which have been put online," he said.
"... The Government has to take it very seriously because for this Government particularly, integrity and honesty (are) ... key attributes and principles and values that we uphold and which is the basis on which we have the moral right to govern Singapore and to serve Singaporeans, and to attack that is a fundamental attack at the core basis of the Singapore Government's standing, reputation and legitimacy. And that is why we responded comprehensively by all the means we could."
When reminded by the judge to answer Mr Lim's question, Mr Lee said he did also make his own considerations and consulted his counsel, Mr Singh, eventually deciding to proceed in this defamation case against Mr Leong.
Mr Lim also tried asking Mr Lee about whether he was involved in the Government's actions in debunking the false statements, and when prompted by the judge, explained how it is relevant to his defence.
MR LEONG'S DEFENCE
"Our defence is two things. The first thing is that we say the Government had taken sufficient action to debunk these false allegations, and there was no need to bring these proceedings," said Mr Lim.
"Secondly, your honour, the second relevance is that this action is really an attempt to protect the integrity of the Government, the reputation of the Government and not a genuine liable action for the plaintiff to recover his reputation, and that offends against the rule in Derbyshire (a legal concept)."
He accused Mr Lee of "riding two horses", as head of Government and as a private citizen. Mr Lee said he did not accept this.
"As Prime Minister, I am responsible for the Government. ... At the same time, as a private individual, I have the right to protect my own integrity and I feel I have the responsibility to do so, because if my integrity is impugned and people feel I was complicit ... in (the 1MDB corruption episode), I have to protect my reputation," said Mr Lee.
He added that while he had a public responsibility to ensure that the Government responds "vigorously" to "such unfounded allegations", he also had a personal responsibility to protect his own reputation and integrity by taking legal advice and acting on it.
Mr Lim put it to the Prime Minister that since he gave evidence that the Government's actions in debunking the false allegations were effective, there was "no proper justification" for him to bring these proceedings against Mr Leong.
Mr Lee replied that the question is about how one's name is cleared.
"Many people would believe the Government, because the Government has good credibility ... because the Government has always cleared its name with clear statements and individuals who have been impugned have cleared their name through civil actions, that we are able to say these individuals are straight and their reputations have been upheld," said Mr Lee.
"And the reason why you think that Government statements clear my name personally is because I have a reputation for having sued people who have impugned me wrongly. Not rightly. Not frequently. But when necessary. And therefore, when a serious case arises and my reputation is injured, I have to act. Otherwise, the question will arise - he always acts when something serious is alleged and is untrue, and in this case it's very serious. Why is he not acting?"
Under questioning by Mr Lim, Mr Lee also said the offending post came to his attention when it was pointed out to him by someone that he cannot remember now.
When asked why he allowed the perpetrators - the STR and The Coverage - to "go scot-free", Mr Lee replied that "they were beyond our reach".
MR LEONG'S ALLEGED CONDUCT AFTER KNOWING HE WAS BEING SUED
Mr Lim also questioned Mr Lee on why he persisted in this case even though Mr Leong took down the offending post after IMDA asked him to.
Mr Lee replied that Mr Leong was legally required to do so, and said Mr Leong did not apologise, contrary to what was falsely reported by the Sarawak Report, and later took "every opportunity" to publicise the current proceedings.
READ: Judge dismisses Leong Sze Hian’s counterclaim, PM Lee’s defamation suit to go to trial
This included sponsoring a post by the website The Online Citizen on the proceedings, said Mr Lee. Mr Leong also gave interviews in Hong Kong and spoke at the Speaker's Corner in relation to these proceedings, said the Prime Minister.
"So if someone feels he has been unjustly attacked and sued simply by sharing an article, you are saying he is drawing publicity to the statements?" asked Mr Lim.
"I think there is a legal way to do it, and the correct way is to clear his name in court. But while court proceedings are pending, to proceed in this way ... in extreme promotion ... can only lead me to conclude he wasn't sorry," answered Mr Lee.
Mr Lim alleged that Mr Lee's court action contained a "collateral purpose" to silence critics such as Mr Leong.
Wahhhh....
Lim Tean (left) and blogger Leong Sze Hian leaving the supreme court on Oct 6 .
HEARING CONTINUES ON WEDNESDAY
The second day of the trial on Wednesday (Oct 7) will see Dr Tuan Quang Phan, the expert witness called by PM Lee, giving evidence via video link from Hong Kong.
Mr Lim has not yet decided if his client, Mr Leong, will take the stand.
At the end of the hearing, Mr Singh said: "I hope the defendant has the courage to take the stand tomorrow."
Replied Mr Lim: "My client certainly has no lesser courage than the plaintiff in not suing STR or The Coverage."
He told reporters afterwards that his cross-examination of Mr Lee went "super well" and that he had got what he wanted out of it.
Lim Tean (left) and blogger Leong Sze Hian leaving the supreme court on Oct 6 .
HEARING CONTINUES ON WEDNESDAY
The second day of the trial on Wednesday (Oct 7) will see Dr Tuan Quang Phan, the expert witness called by PM Lee, giving evidence via video link from Hong Kong.
Mr Lim has not yet decided if his client, Mr Leong, will take the stand.
At the end of the hearing, Mr Singh said: "I hope the defendant has the courage to take the stand tomorrow."
Replied Mr Lim: "My client certainly has no lesser courage than the plaintiff in not suing STR or The Coverage."
He told reporters afterwards that his cross-examination of Mr Lee went "super well" and that he had got what he wanted out of it.
KNN my uncle can see LT is using his beat puppy approach but he should find a better agenda to beat KNN my uncle wish he can takeover as advisor KNN with my uncle's help there is a chance for lhl to become a puppy KNN fyi my uncle has beaten several ceos to puppy but not with pm yet it would be interesting KNN
Did LHL take official leave for this usual personal pap crap?
KNN 口说无评 KNN my uncle shall quote a most leecent case where he beaten another ceo to puppy KNN as you may aware during covid19 and work from home period many companies HR will enforce workers to take annual leave then my uncle's company ceo sent a broadcast email giving all the lame leeson eg what we aware of the stress of working from home etc KNN my uncle leeplied the ceo don't give us 48 96 la KNN we are aware you know wfh is cho bo lan and annual leaves is considered a cost to company accounts KNN just say so no need say what stress of working from home KNN KNN KNN the ceo immediately turned to a puppy sia KNN of course the words used were professional kind without 48 96 but the idea is to tell them don't treat limpeh as a fool KNN also do you think this kind of action will cause you to loose your lice bowl ? KNN
Last edited:
heard he took 1 day annual leave. need to confirm Govt Gazzette though.
"2] Following the recommended wage reductions by the committee which were then debated and subsequently accepted in Parliament, the Prime Minister's salary was reduced by 36% (includes the removal of his pension) to S$2.2 million (then about US$1.7 million).[1] Nonetheless, the Prime Minister remains the highest-paid political leader in the world.[3]"
at 365 days . PM makes 6k per day roughly.
Similar threads
