-
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.
Roy Ngerng ordered to pay S$150,000 in damages for defaming PM Lee
- Thread starter zeroo
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,874
- Points
- 0
SINGAPORE: The Supreme Court has ordered blogger Roy Ngerng to pay S$150,000 in damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation. This comprises S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages.
"While the cases indicate that the damages awarded to Prime Ministers who have been defamed have been substantial, some in excess of S$300,000, none of them involved a defendant of modest standing. The comparatively low standing of the defendant warranted a substantial reduction," a judgement from Justice Lee Seiu Kin stated.
The 34-year-old Ngerng, a former healthcare programme coordinator at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, had written a blogpost last May allegedly comparing the Government's usage of CPF monies to the City Harvest Church leaders' alleged misuse of church funds. In his blog, he charged that the Government did so via the Government’s investment arms, Temasek Holdings and GIC.
The blogger was ordered by the court to no longer publish any assertions that Mr Lee was misappropriating CPF monies. He was also ordered to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses that were borne leading up to the application for the summary judgment.
The judge held that allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct could have severe repercussions, especially if levelled against the leader of a country. "In the present case, the allegations that the plaintiff had criminally misappropriated monies paid by citizens to a state-administered pension fund was one of the gravest that could be made against any individual, let alone a head of government. It struck at the heart of one’s personal integrity and severely undermined the credibility of the target, and was a grave defamation that a fair-minded person would react with indignation," the judgement read.
- CNA
"While the cases indicate that the damages awarded to Prime Ministers who have been defamed have been substantial, some in excess of S$300,000, none of them involved a defendant of modest standing. The comparatively low standing of the defendant warranted a substantial reduction," a judgement from Justice Lee Seiu Kin stated.
The 34-year-old Ngerng, a former healthcare programme coordinator at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, had written a blogpost last May allegedly comparing the Government's usage of CPF monies to the City Harvest Church leaders' alleged misuse of church funds. In his blog, he charged that the Government did so via the Government’s investment arms, Temasek Holdings and GIC.
The blogger was ordered by the court to no longer publish any assertions that Mr Lee was misappropriating CPF monies. He was also ordered to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses that were borne leading up to the application for the summary judgment.
The judge held that allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct could have severe repercussions, especially if levelled against the leader of a country. "In the present case, the allegations that the plaintiff had criminally misappropriated monies paid by citizens to a state-administered pension fund was one of the gravest that could be made against any individual, let alone a head of government. It struck at the heart of one’s personal integrity and severely undermined the credibility of the target, and was a grave defamation that a fair-minded person would react with indignation," the judgement read.
- CNA
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
This would serve as another reminder to the opposition to stop defaming our good PAP leaders. I am also glad that the voters of AMK GRC have overwhelmingly rejected Roy and his rubbish ideas. I hope Roy would stop wasting his time writing about CPF stuff that most sinkies already dismiss as uncredible, pay up the damages and move on with his life.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
Roy should thank himself for being of low standing, as stated by the judgement. Do bloggers, including the likes of Amos Yees, have delusions of grandeur?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,090
- Points
- 113
to ask questions about our CPF is defamation>>>???? what a fucking joke sg has become in the eyes of the world///
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,563
- Points
- 113
good Amos will pay him back?
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 28,642
- Points
- 113
Lol Roy still need to work hard to be honest?! For people like me, honesty comes naturally !
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 14,108
- Points
- 113
Get $150,000 from crowdfunding lor.
Well, he does display symptoms of Messiah complex.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 28,642
- Points
- 113
Surely there's a limit to how stupid Sinkies can be. Funding an idiot like Roy is just like smoking in a petrol kiosk. Doable but extremely stupid!
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,912
- Points
- 113
It is obvious that this judge is a mouthpiece of the Ah Neh lawyer. His judgment takes all the views presented by the Ah Neh and practically ignores the arguments by the defendant lawyer.
And the logic applied by the judgment shows how stupid he is. For example, judge cited that Roy defame Pinky so that he could increase viewership of his blog. For goodness sake, do some basic mathematics lah. How much can Roy benefit with increased viewership? Makes no sense. Another example, judge says that Roy does not have good standing with sinkees despite the substantial viewership of his blog. If viewers don't think much of Roy, then they won't be reading his blog. Third example, judge says that Roy has no credibility as an investigative journalist ...Roy never did presented himself as that ...Roy showed that he was analytical. Judge can't even differentiate between a columnist and journalist.
In short, Pinky won only because it is a kangaroo court. If Pinky has guts, then he should let the appeal be heard in UK court.
And the logic applied by the judgment shows how stupid he is. For example, judge cited that Roy defame Pinky so that he could increase viewership of his blog. For goodness sake, do some basic mathematics lah. How much can Roy benefit with increased viewership? Makes no sense. Another example, judge says that Roy does not have good standing with sinkees despite the substantial viewership of his blog. If viewers don't think much of Roy, then they won't be reading his blog. Third example, judge says that Roy has no credibility as an investigative journalist ...Roy never did presented himself as that ...Roy showed that he was analytical. Judge can't even differentiate between a columnist and journalist.
In short, Pinky won only because it is a kangaroo court. If Pinky has guts, then he should let the appeal be heard in UK court.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,090
- Points
- 113
fully agree...................
Similar threads
