Kenneth Jeyaretnam: PM Lee sets a New Guineas World Record

[Leepotism]

Defamation trial: PM Lee suffered absolutely no loss as a result of TOC publication, says lawyer Lim Tean
The Online Citizen by The Online Citizen 30 November 2020 Reading Time: 5min read

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suffered absolutely no loss as a result of an article published by TOC in August last year, lawyer Lim Tean argued in his cross-examination of PM Lee on the first day of the defamation suit trial against TOC chief editor Terry Xu.

The article, titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”, contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.

Mr Lim, who represents Mr Xu, highlighted on Monday (30 November) that PM Lee and his team had comfortably won the Ang Mo Kio group representation constituency in this year’s general election.

PM Lee earlier claimed that the article in question had gravely injured his character and reputation, and that he had been “brought into public scandal, odium and contempt” as a result.

Mr Lim asked PM Lee to clarify on the loss and damage he had suffered as a result of the article published by TOC.


“Loss of trust, loss of reputation, loss of credibility, loss of respect,” PM Lee replied.

Mr Lim then prompted PM Lee on how he could “prove” the loss, as the latter had given “absolutely no particulars or details” as to how he has suffered the loss.

PM Lee responded: “I cannot prove that by producing people who will tell me that they have dialled me down, but I can say that what has been written has been read by 100,000 people at least, and has been further brought attention to by the defendant.”

Citing PM Lee’s team results in the recent GE, Mr Lim asked if the Prime Minister would agree that his team has performed well by winning the Ang Mo Kio GRC.

PM Lee said the election’s result was not affected by the 38 Oxley Road matter, but Mr Lim highlighted that the election is a “test of your integrity” and reputation.

“Your Honour, if counsel wants to go in this direction, in 2015 before these matters came out the PAP won 69 per cent of the popular vote,” said the Prime Minister.


When Mr Lim stressed that the question was about PM Lee’s “personal result” in Ang Mo Kio GRC, he noted that his team’s votes had also “came down from about 78 per cent [in 2015] to 72 per cent”.

Mr Lim also brought up about the “serious charges” made by Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling against their elder brother PM Lee in 2017, asking if he feels “content” allowing his siblings to damage his reputation with their statements instead.

But PM Lee noted that he has dealt with his siblings’ accusations and has even brought the matter to Parliament before.

“I made two ministerial statements, I opened myself for questioning by the MPs. I invited them to put to me any accusations, suspicions which they may have so that the matter could be clear. They raised nothing,” he noted.

PM Lee said he had also “waived privilege” and republished his statements against his siblings in and outside of Parliament so that they can sue him to “clear their names and prove the case”, to which he said, “they have not done”.

“So as far as the public is concerned, me not suing my siblings does not mean I condone or I believe their statements or that their statements are necessarily true,” he added.

Following that, Mr Lim further questioned PM Lee if his statements in Parliament on 3 and 4 July 2017 have “effectively debunked” the charges made by his siblings.

In response, PM Lee noted that while he cannot assure it was a “100 per cent success”, he believes his statements have had an impact on clarifying his stance on the matter.

“But that is not to say that if others repeated and I do not act against others for which my inhibitions against suing siblings do not apply, that will not further spread the poison and aggravate the damage,” he remarked.

 

[Leepotism]

Defamation trial: PM Lee sends letter via Prime Minister's Office to intimidate TOC chief editor Terry Xu, argues lawyer Lim Tean - The Online Citizen
Demanding TOC chief editor Terry Xu to take down an allegedly defamatory article by sending a letter via the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) instead of making the demand through his lawyers was a way for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to intimidate Mr Xu using his position as head of Government, argued lawyer Lim Tean.
The offending article — titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members” — contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.
In his cross-examination of PM Lee on the first day of the defamation suit trial on Monday (30 November), Mr Lim, who represents Mr Xu, questioned PM Lee’s motives for using the PMO to send such a letter instead of instructing his personal lawyers to send Mr Xu a letter of demand.
PM Lee clarified that his intention was to “avoid a lawsuit”, as he thought that Mr Xu would “get the message” — namely to apologise to him and remove the article so that the matter would be closed.
PM Lee also claimed that a “proper letter of demand” came from his lawyer.
However, Mr Lim highlighted no letter of demand was sent by PM Lee’s lawyer to Mr Xu and that the PMO’s letter was followed directly by a writ of summons instead.
PM Lee replied: “Is that correct? If so I stand corrected.”
Mr Lim asked if he was trying to use his status as the Prime Minister to intimidate Mr Xu to remove the article.
PM Lee denied Mr Lim’s assertion and said that it would be “even more intimidating” if his lawyer acts for him.
“I have never done this before. I should say that if I had signed the letter myself, perhaps that would be less intimidating,” he noted.
PM Lee also confirmed that his office has publicised the letter “almost immediately” to the mainstream media after it was sent to Mr Xu.
While presenting the letter sent by PM Lee’s press secretary — dated 1 September 2019 — before the court today, Mr Lim asked the Prime Minister if the letter was drafted by his lawyers.
PM Lee answered: “I cleared the post. I cleared the text.”
Mr Lim repeated the question of whether the letter was drafted by his lawyers, to which PM Lee confirmed that it was.
“So you chose to send out the letter on your Prime Minister’s letterhead instead of your lawyer’s letterhead when actually it had been drafted by your lawyers?” Mr Lim asked.
In response to the question, PM Lee said: “No, but I wanted it to be the lawyers who were working for me and I wanted this to be a missive short of a formal letter from my lawyers.”
Mr Lim asked whether PM Lee would get his lawyers to send a letter of demand pursuing libel claims with a clear message that he is pursuing his claims “as a private individual”, to which PM Lee answered: “Yes”.
He further probed PM Lee: “But here, by using your Prime Minister’s Office letterhead you are telling him, ‘I am coming after you as the Prime Minister of this country’. Do you agree?”
PM Lee, however, disagreed with Mr Lim, arguing that his point was to tell Mr Xu that he has defamed him “as the Prime Minister of Singapore personally” and wanted him “to take notice” of the defamation.

 

[tanwahtiu]

And he don't hv his father calibre type. Get coat tail into parliament after GRC was created in 1989GE.

Until now he dare not fight 1 to 1 in single ward. Wood got balls to fight 1 to 1 and he won.

Now he go round bully gen Y he think that means he got balls.

When a NSF boy was beaten up UK, and 2 Sinkie girls were beaten up in Melbourne during height of Covid this CAQ Loong did nothing to warn the angmoh PMs to stop their arrogant bully.

Fuck this is a balless leader Singapore has.

Pui....

Taking own people to court shamed us to the world....

in many democratic countries all you need is 30 % of popular votes to form a government whreas in sinkiland the population had delivered 40% of poular votes to the opposition parties and yet only about 10% representation in our parliament

take India's BJP ,currently in power ,their popular vote is 37% only and considered a landslide with two third majority in the parliament, just as malusia, Mohideen is the current PM and his party's popular votes is less than 20% ,even DAP ,the major political party in the Malaysian parliament whose popular votes is less than 27%

hence ,sinkies are not be blamed entirely

its how PAP eliminates competitions and particularly potential competitions in such as this very defamation itself ...PAP kills the very finance avilable to any potential competition

 

[zeddy]

How's the relationship like between KJ and his bro Philip? One seeks revenge and justice for his late warrior father , another seems happy to be on the side of the establishment that destroyed his father.

 

[nayr69sg]

in many democratic countries all you need is 30 % of popular votes to form a government whreas in sinkiland the population had delivered 40% of poular votes to the opposition parties and yet only about 10% representation in our parliament

take India's BJP ,currently in power ,their popular vote is 37% only and considered a landslide with two third majority in the parliament, just as malusia, Mohideen is the current PM and his party's popular votes is less than 20% ,even DAP ,the major political party in the Malaysian parliament whose popular votes is less than 27%

hence ,sinkies are not be blamed entirely

its how PAP eliminates competitions and particularly potential competitions in such as this very defamation itself ...PAP kills the very finance avilable to any potential competition

I agree with you.

Singapore is a benevolent dictatorship.

The Lee family will never lose power.

And there is little sinkies can do to prevent that. Yes sinkies are not to be blamed entirely.

Elections in Singapore are a big show.

 

[red amoeba]

How can I vote someone who don’t even bother to turn up for TV rally ? All oppos treat the election seriously except reform party.

 

[Leepotism]

Defamation trial: Ho Ching removed as an executor together with Lee Hsien Loong by Lee Kuan Yew in 2011 will
The Online Citizen by The Online Citizen 1 December 2020 Reading Time: 5min read

It was revealed in court that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching were removed as executors of PM Lee’s father and Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s first will.

On the second day of the PM’s defamation suit trial against TOC chief editor Terry Xu on Tuesday (1 December), Mr Xu’s lawyer Lim Tean questioned PM Lee if Mr LKY had removed him and Mdm Ho as executors — and named Mr LHY and Dr LWL as executors — in a revised version of the Lee patriarch’s will.

PM Lee’s defamation suit against Mr Xu pertains to an article published on TOC on 15 August last year titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.

The article contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.

PM Lee testified at the witness stand during Mr Lim’s cross-examination of him that Mdm Ho “was never an executor”.


He added that while he was made an executor of a will that Mr LKY “made a long time ago”, the elder Lee had removed PM Lee as an executor as matters on the 38 Oxley Road property “can be contentious”.

“He told me on 23 July and I note it and accepted it. It is for him to decide. It is his will. It is his property. His estate. I left it entirely to him,” said PM Lee, referencing Mr LKY’s email to him after a Cabinet meeting on 38 Oxley Road on 21 July 2011.

PM Lee’s lawyer Davinder Singh interjected at this point to reference an email, but Mr Lim stressed that he was asking PM Lee about Mr LKY’s will.

Mr Lim then told PM Lee to look at Mr LKY’s first will – which was drafted by Mr LKY’s wife and PM Lee’s mother Kwa Geok Choo – following which PM Lee acknowledged that according to the said will, Mdm Ho was named as an executor.

“Ah, sorry, then I withdraw my previous statement. According to this, Ho Ching was an executor for the old will,” said PM Lee.

“Yes. Ho Ching was the executor under the old will, the first will, drafted by your late mother?” Mr Lim prompted, to which PM Lee replied in the affirmative.


PM Lee then hastened to explain why it “made sense”, saying that based on the aforementioned email on 23 July, he was taken out as executor as Mr LKY said that “the house is worth 20 million and both of them have told me they would resist confiscation without compensation”.

PM Lee explained that the above refers to any attempt by the Government to acquire the house.

“Therefore, if I am an executor in that estate and at the same time prime minister it will put me in an awkward position and therefore he took me out as executor and I said, “Yes, I fully understand,” said PM Lee.

 

[CPTMiller]

I am surprised why Ah Loong want to attend court. He can easily excuse himself. So many high end lawyers helping him. As for Lim Tean can be easily handle by Shanmugam law

 

[Leepotism]

Defamation trial: Closed-door hearing on Thursday morning to determine whether LKY’s lawyer Kwa Kim Li will testify

by The Online Citizen

3 December 2020

Reading Time: 2min read

The trial of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit against TOC chief editor Terry Xu is set to continue on Thursday (3 December), with a closed-door hearing in the morning on whether the late Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer Kwa Kim Li will be testifying.
PM Lee’s defamation suit against Mr Xu pertains to an article published on TOC on 15 August last year titled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members”.
The article contained alleged defamatory statements made by PM Lee’s siblings Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in relation to the 38 Oxley Road dispute.
Mr Xu had served a subpoena on Mdm Kwa on 7 October for her to testify as a defence witness. Ms Kwa, however, is applying to have the subpoena set aside.
Mdm Kwa, the niece of the late Mr LKY’s wife Kwa Geok Choo, is represented by lawyers from Drew and Napier. She was the lawyer tasked with drafting Mr LKY’s will and had admitted being part of drafting six of the seven wills.

Mdm Kwa previously told The Straits Times that she did not prepare Mr LKY’s last will.
Dr LWL, however, alleged that Mdm Kwa had “extensively” discussed changes Mr LKY wanted to make to his will before he signed the December 2013 will — the seventh and final will.
“From late November 2013 all the way till Friday 13 December 2013, my father had had discussions and exchanged emails with KKL of Lee & Lee on what he wanted in his will. These included discussions of his immediately prior will.
“The will my father signed on Tuesday 17 December 2013 reflected these prior discussions with his lawyer KKL,” Dr LWL claimed in a Facebook post on 30 April last year.
Mr LHY similarly previously claimed that the will was “drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee”.
If Mdm Kwa’s application is set aside by the judge, she will have to appear in court in the afternoon to testify.

Share this:

 

[bobby]

Seeking judgement against Pinky in a Singapore court is like buying 4-D with 3 numbers....

 

[Leepotism]

Defamation trial: LKY's lawyer Kwa Kim Li's handwritten notes reveal PM Lee Hsien Loong "has free reign", "can handle Cabinet" - The Online Citizen
Prime Minister “Lee Hsien Loong has free reign” and “He can handle Cabinet” were among the words handwritten by the late Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer Kwa Kim Li in her email correspondence with the Lee patriarch.
This was revealed in court on the fourth day of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit trial against TOC chief editor Terry Xu on Thursday (3 December).
Ms Kwa, the niece of the late Mr LKY’s wife Kwa Geok Choo, was the lawyer tasked with drafting Mr LKY’s will and had admitted being part of drafting six of the seven wills from 2011 to 2012.
In his examination of Ms Kwa this afternoon, Mr Xu’s lawyer Lim Tean referenced an email sent by Ms Kwa to Mr LKY on 2 October 2012.
Mr Lim asked Ms Kwa if the handwritten notes were penned by Ms Kwa herself, to which she confirmed that she did.
“And you see the first of the handwritten words there, “Lee Hsien Loong has free reign”. Is that a reference to Lee Hsien Loong?” Mr Lim questioned.
“Yes. Yes,” Ms Kwa replied.
“And the words, “He can handle Cabinet”, is that also a reference to Lee Hsien Loong?” Mr Lim further probed.
“The answer would be privileged,” Ms Kwa responded.
Justice Audrey Lim, however, disagreed with Ms Kwa, stating that “this is what is written”.
She then sought clarification from Ms Kwa as to who “he” in the “He can handle Cabinet” referred to.
“He would be Lee Hsien Loong,” said Ms Kwa.
Kwa Kim Li searched for document on whether 38 Oxley Road was gazetted at least twice
Citing an email from Mr LKY to her and Dr LWL with the subject “Osley” (sic), dated 6 September 2012, Mr Lim asked Ms Kwa if she had received the email.
“Yes,” Ms Kwa replied.
“And are the handwritten notes in this email yours?” Mr Lim further probed.
“Yes,” Ms Kwa responded.
Mr Lim then asked Ms Kwa to read the handwritten words, following which the latter read out: “I can’t find gazette. Told him.”

When Mr Lim proceeded to ask her when she had searched for any indication or information on the gazetting of 38 Oxley Road, Ms Kwa replied: “It would be around this time in September 2012.”
Mr Lim then asked Ms Kwa if she had searched for the gazette after receiving the aforementioned email.
Ms Kwa replied that she could not remember “whether it was before or it was after”.
“Right. So you can’t remember whether you searched for the gazette before or after this email?” Mr Lim questioned.
“Yes,” Ms Kwa replied.
When asked by Mr Lim as to how many times she had conducted a search on whether 38 Oxley Road was gazetted and when she had carried out the searches, Ms Kwa replied that she had done so on at least two occasions.
“The first time I searched was around the time of this email. I had asked my librarian to check for me,” she said, referencing 6 September 2012.
“And the second time I checked or rather I searched it was perhaps a few days after. I have asked one of my colleagues one of the lawyers to check for me,” Ms Kwa testified.
Mr Lim then asked her: “So to the best of your knowledge, can you tell us again how many times did you search for the gazette?”
“I can’t exactly remember, but it would be twice … At least twice,” she said.
Mr Lim then asked her she had notified Mr LKY “on all the occasions” after conducting her searches, to which Ms Kwa replied that the matter would be privileged information.
While agreeing that the matter would be privileged if it was part of Ms Kwa’s solicitor-client relationship with Mr LKY, Justice Lim queried Ms Kwa as to who the “him” in “I can’t find gazette. Told him” referred to.
Ms Kwa then confirmed that it referred to PM Lee.
Mr Lim later cited an email sent by Mr LKY to Ms Kwa on 16 October 2012.
When asked as to whether she had received the email from Mr LKY, Ms Kwa said that she did.
She also confirmed that the handwritten notes in the email were hers when asked by Mr Lim.
Referencing Ms Kwa’s last handwritten sentence in the email, which read “I can’t find Oxley gazette”, Mr Lim asked Ms Kwa if she had — around the time she wrote an email to Mr LKY on 16 October 2012 — checked on whether 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted.
“I can’t remember,” Ms Kwa replied.
Justice Lim then interjected: “Yes, but just to clarify, “I can’t find Oxley gazette” means you can’t find a gazette — sorry, you can’t find a document that shows Oxley the house had been gazetted?”
“That is correct,” said Ms Kwa.
When asked again by Mr Lim if she made another search on whether 38 Oxley Road was gazetted around 16 October 2012, Ms Kwa reiterated that she could not remember.
Handwritten notes on 17 August 2011 email included certain words and language “subsequently inserted into” Mr LKY’s will
Mr Lim earlier questioned Ms Kwa if she had drafted the six wills of Mr LKY between 20 August 2011 and 2 November 2012, to which she answered yes.
He then asked her if all but last two of the six wills — dated 20 September 2012 and 4 October 2012 — contained the demolition clause for the 38 Oxley Road property, to which she replied in the affirmative.
When questioned by Mr Lim on whether the handwritten notes in an email sent from Mr LHY’s wife Lee Suet Fern to Mr LKY were penned by Ms Kwa, Ms Kwa confirmed that it is true.
The email, dated 17 August 2011, was copied to Mr LHY and Dr LWL.
Mr Lim then asked Ms Kwa if her handwritten notes in the email had included “certain words and language” which were “subsequently inserted into” Mr LKY’s will, dated 20 August 2011.
Ms Kwa responded that she did.
Kwa Kim Li forwarded documents to all three Lee siblings with a letter
Ms Kwa also disclosed during Mr Lim’s examination of her evidence that she had sent documents alongside a letter to PM Lee, Mr LHY and Dr LWL “as the only beneficiaries” of Mr LKY’s estate on 4 June 2015.
In the letter, Ms Kwa wrote that PM Lee had requested “file records” Mr LKY’s previous wills “for notes, emails, whatever information on Lee Kuan Yew’s instructions to you regarding Oxley”.
Ms Kwa also confirmed that she had sent a letter to the three Lee siblings on the subject matter of the estate of Lee Kuan Yew on 22 June 2015.
Mr Lim then asked her if she did attach the three categories of documents set out at the bottom of her letter, namely:

• The draft will of 19 August 2011 with cover email;
• The email trail of 16 December 2013 from Mrs Lee Suet Fern; and
• The email trail of 3 January 2014 from Lin Ho, Mr LKY’s private secretary.

Ms Kwa confirmed that she did.
“And can I just ask you to confirm that when you mentioned Fern, it is a reference to Lee Suet Fern?” Mr Lim questioned.
“Yes,” Ms Kwa replied.
Ms Kwa, a senior partner at Lee&Lee, previously told The Straits Times that she did not prepare Mr LKY’s last will.
Dr LWL, however, alleged that Ms Kwa had “extensively” discussed changes Mr LKY wanted to make to his will before he signed the December 2013 will — the seventh and final will.
Mr LHY similarly previously claimed that the will was “drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee”.
Share this:

 

[Kee Chew]

Concluded ?

https://fb.watch/2c6ahYW12R/

 

[CPTMiller]

Seeking judgement against Pinky in a Singapore court is like buying 4-D with 3 numbers....

Hahahahaaa.
Only heaven can touch the Familleeeeeee