Blog

Davinder Singh: Case To Seek ‘Strong Damages’ From Roy Ngerng

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer made the case for substantial damages to be awarded today (July 1), asking the court to express “in the strongest terms” its indignation at blogger Roy Ngerng’s conduct in defaming their client.

The case stands out for the “depth and intensity” of Mr Ngerng’s malice towards Mr Lee and his resolve to damage Mr Lee’s reputation,
said Mr Davinder Singh in his opening statement tendered to court today at the start of a three-day hearing on how much the blogger has to pay in damages. “The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling.”

A High Court ruled in November last year that Mr Ngerng had defamed Mr Lee in a May 2014 blog posting alleging misappropriation of money paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund. Today, citing a previous defamation case where the Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to pay Mr Lee Kuan Yew S$280,000 in general and aggravated damages — he was then Minister Mentor in the Prime Minister’s Office and also the chairman of the GIC — Mr Singh said: “In this instance, the Plaintiff was defamed in his capacity as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore and the Chairman of GIC, and this should therefore warrant a higher award of damages.

“The maintenance of the standing of the Plaintiff as the Prime Minister of Singapore and as Chairman of GIC is critical, and the public perception of his integrity will affect his effectiveness to govern and oversee GIC.”

Mr Singh also said: “From the very first, the Defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel towards the Plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech.”

For instance, the 34-year-old blogger would have pulled the offending article from his blog if he was contrite,
he said. Instead, he posted the letter of demand sent to him on his blog to draw more attention to the article, and wrote an accompanying article to “style himself as a martyr”.

In his affidavit to the court,
Mr Lee said Mr Ngerng made a “very serious and grave allegation”, which has “caused me distress and embarrassment”. He added that Mr Ngerng has “opportunistically used the libel in a calculated and cynical manner” to promote himself and cause further distress and injury to him.

But Mr Ngerng is seeking the court to either award no damages, or award minimal or nominal general damages and/or not award any aggravated damages. In his court statement, Mr Ngerng, who paid S$29,000 in total costs to Mr Lee for the legal proceedings up to the summary judgment issued against him, said his case can be analysed in two other ways beyond the legal or technical factors affecting the assessment of damages he has to pay.

The first relates to “the consequences of damages to free speech and democracy”, he said. The second is at the “socio-legal level”, where “we consider whether Singapore should move towards a more graceful society when its citizens share the same concerns with the Government in the welfare of Singaporeans and betterment of Singapore”.

Source: www.todayonline.com

July 2, 2015
Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

The hearing on the assessment of damages that blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — after he was found guilty of defaming the Prime Minister — began today (July 1), in front of a packed courtroom with queues forming outside the courtroom hours before the session started.

However, there were few fireworks during the six-hour hearing, with the judge repeatedly interjecting Mr Ngerng’s cross-examination of Mr Lee as a witness and bringing him back on track, despite giving the blogger — who was representing himself in court — more leeway in his questioning.

On several occasions, Mr Ngerng tried to argue that his blog posts have no malicious intent, despite the fact that he was already found guilty of defamation. This prompted Mr Lee to remark that “we are not here to play games”, while his lawyer Davinder Singh objected to Ngerng’s comments and questions as being irrelevant.

Both sides also crossed swords on whether there was malice in Mr Ngerng’s conduct, whether he was sincere in his apologies and whether his subsequent actions aggravated the injury to Mr Lee’s reputation.

While Mr Ngerng started his cross-examination by apologising to Mr Lee at least three times, and pointing out that he had posted an apology on his blog for 405 days as of yesterday, his other actions suggested there was no remorse, Mr Lee pointed out. For instance, he posted a YouTube video repeating defamatory allegations against Mr Lee after he was served a letter of demand to remove the offending blog posting, and later set the access to the clip to private instead of removing it.

That was not the end of it, added Mr Lee, who noted that Ngerng also went on to email the media on how to access offending posts on another website, among other things.

“The issue is your motive and your purpose, having committed to take down the video, having committed not to repeat the libel, you have gone instead to make maximum effort to distribute as widely as you can to all editors in Singapore and overseas, and tell them where they can find it after you have taken it down,” said Mr Lee, who had offered not to claim aggravated damages if Ngerng removed the clip.

Mr Ngerng argued that he meant no malice, adding that since Mr Lee had not met him before yesterday’s hearing, he had no basis to come to that conclusion. “If need be, you can put me on a lie detector and I can prove to you that there is no malice on my part,” he told Justice Lee Seiu Kin.

He also questioned why Mr Lee had decided on suing instead of trying other means of recourse. To which, Mr Lee said he consulted his lawyers and saw the need to defend himself in this instance, after having observed Mr Ngerng’s blog for some time, which had previous postings on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system.

“You have been skirting closer and closer to defaming me for a long period, I have been watching this. I have not responded … eventually it was unambiguous (and) I decided that I have no choice but to act,” added Mr Lee.

When Mr Ngerng sought to show that parts of his article contained factual statements, even pressing Mr Lee on issues pertaining to the workings of the CPF, Mr Singh objected, calling it a “thinly-disguised attempt to try to introduce issues not relevant to this hearing”.

Both Mr Lee and his lawyer also pointed out that Mr Ngerng was straying into challenging the issue of defamation that had already been settled by the court. Mr Lee added: “We are not here to play games, the meaning of these offending words have already been settled … there is no point going through again other than to aggravate damages”.

On Mr Ngerng’s question of why his initial offer of S$5,000 in damages was rejected even though it was an amount higher than his monthly salary then as a healthcare worker at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Mr Lee responded that it was “not a sincere offer” because Mr Ngerng had aggravated the matter through his conduct.

“He was not serious or worried of how much he was earning … He wanted to make as big a dent in my reputation as he could,” added Mr Lee.

The hearing continues tomorrow (July 2), with Mr Singh expected to cross-examine Mr Ngerng.

Source: www.todayonline.com

July 2, 2015
More Light, Less Heat On Sexuality Issues

The past debates on the rights of LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender) individuals and their implication on public policy in Singapore have generated much heat. These debates have also almost exclusively centred on the arguments of religion versus rights.

Though these two perspectives matter, they leave out other fields of studies, from science to philosophy, that ought to be considered. Additionally, the narrow focus means that those in the middle ground, who may not be well informed on LGBT issues, remain unaware of other perspectives.

This is further exacerbated by the severe lack of LGBT resources from diverse sources, which are able to provide different points of view.

The lack of diversity in the debate is worrying for two reasons. First, the religion-versus-rights-only debate does not lead to mutual understanding. This is illustrated through a 2014 study done by researchers from Nanyang Technological University. They analysed nearly 10,500 comments left on two different online petitions in 2007 that called for a repeal or retention of Section 377A, the law that criminalises male homosexual sex.

They found that the “retain” side argued almost exclusively from a religious perspective. The “repeal” side, however, focused on the rights perspective. Neither side engaged one another or invoked other perspectives.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Government justifies its LGBT policies based on public opinion. At a Singapore Perspective Conference 2013 organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “the conservative roots in society” is the reason that the “status quo will remain”. The question, then, is on what basis are the uninformed middle ground, whose views influence state policies, forming their opinions on LGBT issues? Possibly, their views are based on half-formed impressions derived from incomplete facts or arguments.

Beyond rights and religion, the other domains of knowledge which ought to matter include philosophy, ethics, history, science and anthropology.

Anthropology will help us answer questions about the nature and diversity of sexuality and family structures. Science, in particular psychology and biology, can shed light on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and if it exists in other species.

History will tell us if homosexuality and non-heterosexual, non-monogamous families are part of our Asian heritage. Ethics provides a compass to navigate the waters of right and wrong. Finally, philosophy illuminates concepts and points to the relevance of all the above.

EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE

These fields of studies are vast. They may even raise more questions than answers. But knowledge — not just of the facts, but of the concepts, arguments and the logic that are essential to making decisions on matters of public interest — is crucial.

Indeed this knowledge is essential to the proper working of a democratic society, one where citizens make decisions based on the best of what they ought to know, not on what they think they know, or gleaned from hearsay or from partial knowledge.

Who provides and how to provide the range of information mentioned above?

First, just as the Government provides resources for citizens on other issues, it should also provide resources on LGBT issues. This is especially so as it cites public opinion as the reason for maintaining the status quo on LGBT policies. This can be done through all its agencies, including statutory boards such as the Health Promotion Board and the National Library Board (NLB).

An excellent start would be with NLB’s recently announced 19-member advisory panel to review library materials, which may include books that have LGBT content. The NLB should ensure that its panel members, who include taxi drivers, students and corporate leaders, have access to the full range of diverse information in order to fulfil their roles.

Panel members should then deliberate this information instead of solely drawing from their own perspectives and understanding of an issue. Political scientists who study deliberative democracy, which is concerned with improved collective decision-making, have shown that fuller knowledge of the issues at stake results in better outcomes in decision-making.

Such information should also be made public for citizens to deliberate.

Second, non-governmental organisations, academics and individuals should also add to the pool of knowledge by going beyond rights and religion and into the areas mentioned above. Their views might be different and even contradict one another, but it is the process of sifting through conflicting material that makes us better decision makers.

Of course, exposing people to facts contrary to what they previously thought does not always result in them changing their minds.

Academic studies by American researchers such as Mr Brendan Nyhan and Mr James Kulklinski have shown that misinformed individuals who care strongly about a topic (on, say, whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example) will hold more strongly to their beliefs even when they are presented with facts that disprove their beliefs.

This is even true of supposedly more open-minded, “politically sophisticated thinkers”.

As the American novelist Mark Twain quipped: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

As bleak as this sounds, there is a silver lining. Other studies have found that the misinformed are more likely to consider other facts and change their beliefs if they feel more secure about themselves, or if the information is presented directly to them.

Furthermore, the Nyhan and Kulklinski studies did not focus on those who do not hold strong views and who are ignorant of the many facets of an issue. This group of people would benefit from the diverse and factually correct information and arguments.

So, the next time the middle ground are asked to participate in a survey on LGBT issues, they would hopefully be able to give a more considered response.

About the author: Siti Nadzirah Samsudin is a research assistant at the Institute of Policy Studies of the National University of Singapore.

Source: www.todayonline.com

June 30, 2015
Peter Lim Buys Over Cristiano Ronaldo’s Image Rights

The image rights of Cristiano Ronaldo (picture), the world’s highest-paid footballer, are now being managed by a company owned by Singaporean businessman Peter Lim.

In a press release yesterday, it was announced that Mint Media, a Hong Kong-based company owned by Mr Lim, had secured a six-year deal with the Portuguese star, who is the reigning FIFA Ballon d’Or winner, the award handed out to the best football player in the world.

Mint Media will own and oversee all of the 30-year-old’s image rights, except those relating to Real Madrid, the Spanish football club for which he plays.

Due to confidentiality reasons, contractual details, such as how much the deal is worth, were not revealed. But in response to queries from TODAY, a spokesperson for Mint Media revealed that Asian companies were very interested in working with Ronaldo.

“We are seeing a lot of interest from Asian companies, including those from Singapore looking to expand their markets into North and South Americas as well as Europe, where Ronaldo has a huge following,” said the spokesperson.

“We believe they would be keen to have Ronaldo, who is one of the most accomplished and popular sportsmen in the world, endorse their products. And we hope the collaborations will see Ronaldo making more appearances to Asia in general and Singapore in particular.”

Ronaldo, who previously played for record-20-time English league champions Manchester United before joining Real in 2009, is the third-highest-paid athlete in the world, behind boxers Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao, according to Forbes.

Among the brands Ronaldo endorses are sportswear giant Nike, nutrition and weight management firm Herbalife, Swiss watchmaker TAG Heuer, and fashion and lifestyle brand Sacoor Brothers. A Forbes report this year stated that he draws US$27 million (S$36.4 million) from endorsements alone.

Ronaldo will be Mint Media’s first client as it looks to venture into sports marketing, and Mr Lim — who last year became owner of Spanish club Valencia — expressed confidence that the football star’s brand “will continue to grow”.

“Peter has a valuable and extensive business network, and I have always admired his entrepreneurial savvy and ability to grow businesses,” said Ronaldo in a statement.

When the six-year deal ends, Ronaldo will be 36, which traditionally is the twilight of the careers of many professional footballers. But the spokesperson said: “We believe Ronaldo’s popularity will transcend his football career, as he also has a strong following among non-football fans because of his good looks and charisma.”

WORLD’S HIGHEST-PAID ATHLETES (TOP 10):

1. Floyd Mayweather (Boxing): US$300 million

2. Manny Pacquiao (Boxing): US$160 million

3. Cristiano Ronaldo (Football): US$79.6 million

4. Lionel Messi (Football): US$73.8 million

5. Roger Federer (Tennis): US$67 million

6. LeBron James (Basketball): US$64.8 million

7. Kevin Durant (Basketball): US$54.1 million

8. Phil Mickelson (Golf): US$50.8 million

9. Tiger Woods (Golf): US$50.6 million

10. Kobe Bryant (Basketball): US$49.5 million

*Includes endorsement deals.

Source: www.todayonline.com

June 30, 2015
HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

It’s difficult for a heartland born-and-bred Singaporean like me to imagine, but there are apparently people in Singapore who have never lived in, or even stepped into, a Housing Board flat.

When I was discussing property purchases with a group of friends, one of my girlfriends confessed she would not buy a HDB flat because she wouldn’t feel safe in one. She grew up in private property and her first purchase was a condominium.

I got to thinking about this issue, following reports that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to make it easier for all couples, including high-earning ones, to own and live in a HDB built-to-order (BTO) flat.

In a live radio talk show on Chinese-language station Capital 95.8FM, he is reported to have said: “If you ask for my personal opinion … I generally prefer to give every Singaporean couple a chance of living in HDB.

“You may come from, say, an upper-income group. You do not need an HDB flat. But I feel that it’s good for … almost all Singaporeans to have a chance of living in HDB for five years, and interact with the community.”

He added: “It’s part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. It’s just like males go for National Service … If we can give them this opportunity of staying in HDB towns, I think there are more positives than negatives.”

His remarks were made in the context of raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, which he said could happen by Sept.

Now, a married couple with a joint monthly income of up to $10,000 can buy a subsidised, new HDB flat. It was raised from $8,000 in 2011.

This isn’t the first time Mr Khaw made such a comment. In an exclusive interview with The Straits Times in April 2013, he had broached the idea of scrapping the income ceiling to allow even couples with very high incomes to own HDB flats, as living in HDB flats would give people more chances to interact with others of different races and incomes. But the lower-income households ones would still get bigger housing grants.

Mr Khaw said then: “If a rich man’s kid wants to apply for a BTO flat, provided he stays the five-year minimum occupation period, there’s nothing wrong with that to me”.

My reaction both times was bemusement.

For most Singaporeans, HDB living is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Most live in HDB estates. Those of us who grew up in one, and moved on to private property, will probably always hanker after the bustle of HDB life.

You see all the BMW-driving businessmen in long-sleeved shirts wiping away beads of sweat as they wolf down their bak chor mee or mee goreng at their favourite HDB coffeeshop and hawker centre, and you see the looks of blissful content on the well-dressed women as they buy their cheap laundry baskets or pick up kitchen utensils at the household sundry shop, and you know you can take the boy or girl out of the HDB estate, but you can’t take the HDB out of the boy or girl.

So the idea that a special policy is needed to encourage people to live in and interact with HDB residents will appear slightly surreal to some. On my Facebook, a friend commented that she felt insulted, as though HDB residents were creatures in a zoo that the rich are being encouraged to visit to see.

I empathise with that comment. It’s like having a special policy to encourage those who live with a permanent bubble around their heads to take their heads out of the bubble and breathe normal air like the rest of us.

Breathing normal air is the default, and should be so. But I can see that if segments of our population have become so used to living in that bubble of air, it would take concerted policy action to persuade them to try normal air for a change.

The truth is that Singapore society is stratifying. Whereas many of today’s middle-aged professionals grew up in HDB flats, it’s probably the case that more of today’s 20-something year old professionals and managers grew up in private housing. So the idea of having them live in and experience HDB life, isn’t a bad one. From the point of view of social cohesion, it makes sense.

In Singapore, public housing caters to the majority of the population – 80 per cent of Singapore resident households live in HDB flats. The idea is precisely that we would all grow up in mixed neighbourhoods that jumble up people of different races, different income groups, and different socioeconomic status.

So it makes sense to encourage the small minority who never had a chance to do that when they were growing up, and encourage them to do so in their young adulthood.

I often wonder how many of today’s young Administrative Service civil servants, and the smart youngsters who enter the banks, the legal profession, and even the media, have lived in HDB flats, and if they have empathy for the average Singaporean who does. These people are future leaders and decision-makers.

If too many of them come from privileged families, they would never have experienced poverty, or suffered from want or anxiety over money problems. But if they had a friend in school or in their neighbourhood who did, and were close enough a confidant to share vicariously in the friend’s struggles, their worldview will be more rounded than the wealthy child who lives with, plays with and goes to school with only other wealthy children.

If raising the income ceiling to allow more young couples to live in HDB flats can help reduce the social gap that can exist between the privileged and the masses, then there are reasons to do so.

I know some readers will argue that HDB flats should be reserved for the lower-income. Let the high-income earners who want to live in HDB estates buy flats on the resale market.

But the fact is that, with 80 per cent living in HDB estates, HDB flat owners already include the high-income. Increasingly, the subsidised HDB flat is being viewed as the birthright of every Singaporean couple. The HDB gravy train gives them a ticket to an affordable first home – and a firm step up the ladder of financial success, if they are lucky enough enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars subsequently by selling it on the open market.

But opening up the floodgates this way will inevitably lead to demands from other groups to be given the same access to HDB subsidised flats. Mature couples who missed out on buying HDB flats earlier will also want to be allowed to buy subsidised flats. And singles will demand more leeway to benefit from housing subsidies too.

The arguments about the social benefits of having every Singaporean experience HDB living applies equally to them.

Source: http://business.asiaone.com

June 30, 2015