Thinking it over, I think yesterday’s six hours in court can be summarised like this:
Mr Ngerng:
“I am sorry if what I said hurt you, I never intended to hurt you. I’m sorry that you took it badly. You really shouldn’t have. You’re the PM, you’re a big man and I’m just a poor blogger trying to get answers on questions of immense public interest. Anyway, please point out which line hurt you? This one? That one? How do you know I was talking about you anyway? I never named you. How do you know people read my posts anyway? And what’s wrong with you? Couldn’t you just have told me nicely that you were hurt? Now, you sue me and want to bankrupt me, an unemployed man and who had offered a princely sum of $10,000 to you, more than what most people earn… Why are you so afraid of me that you want me to shut up? I am not shutting up. Never. In any case, since you now know that I never intended to hurt you – that is, you got me all wrong – can I have a second chance and we settle everything out of court can?’’
And the PM:
“You said sorry so many times but I’m quite sure you’re not. Because you keep repeating what I thought the court had already settled: That you defamed me. Do you seriously think that $5,000 or $10,000 will make up for what you did to me, the Prime Minister of Singapore? I would have been okay with a sorry but you’re too much…I’ve been watching you and now you’ve stepped out of line. Don’t wriggle out of it by asking me about this line or that line. The whole thing was offensive. As for whether people read you or not, there’s this thing called Google. Clearly you hate me and you want to make some political capital from putting me on the stand. This is so people will think you’re a champion. But it’s really back down to this: You defamed me and the question is: How much should you pay me?”
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”.
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.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Sunday (Jun 28) began his two-day official visit in Singapore, which came as Singapore celebrates its Golden Jubilee and 50 years of bilateral relations with Australia this year.
On Sunday evening, Mr Abbott and Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong presided over a special barbecue at Bishan Park.
The barbecue event was part of the 50 Bridges programme – an arts and community engagement programme meant to celebrate Singapore’s Golden Jubilee, as well as 50 years of diplomatic relations between the Republic and Australia.
Fifty Aussie barbecues involving 10,000 beef and lamb steaks were set up across 22 locations in Singapore. About 1,000 people turned up at Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park.
“I think it’s a great way that the Australians and Singaporeans mix together and we have barbecue beef from Australia, it’s great,” said Mr Francis Tan, a Bishan resident.
Ms Cherly Anne, a fellow Bishan resident, added: “It’s fantastic, it’s a really a good way for Singaporeans and Australians to bond and also a good way to celebrate SG50.”
Mr Lee and Mr Abbott also joined in the festivities. They had earlier gone on a walk in the park where they met some residents.
Mr Abbott then planted a tree – the “Melaleuca cajuputi” – a tree which is native to Singapore and can be found in Australia too. The two prime ministers then made their way to the barbecue area where they also barbecued some steaks.
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (centre R) and Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott (centre L) grill meat over a barbecue during a visit to Bishan Park in Singapore on Jun 28, 2015. (Photo: AFP/Mohd Fyrol)
Mr Abbott is on his first official visit at the invitation of Mr Lee. Australia was one of the first countries to recognise Singapore’s independence in 1965. Since then, relations between the two nations have grown in areas such as security as well as arts and culture.
Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Ministry says the visit underscores the deep and longstanding ties between the two countries.
The highlight of the visit will be signing of the Singapore-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership by the two prime ministers. It will see the two countries cooperating more closely across sectors such as economic, foreign affairs, defence and security and people-to-people ties.
An official welcome ceremony will be held for Mr Abbott in Monday. He will also visit the Singapore Botanical Gardens, where an orchid hybrid will be named in honour of the relationship between both countries.
Mr Abbott will also deliver the 35th Singapore Lecture which addresses the issue of strengthening security in the region.
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (R) and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (L) don balloon hats as they visit Bishan Park in Singapore, Jun 28, 2015. (Photo: AP/Joseph Nair)
Pink Dot, the annual gay celebratory event of “the freedom to love”, will take place this Saturday at Hong Lim Park for the seventh time since its inauguration in 2009.
Each year, the event is headlined by celebrities and has attracted global brands as sponsors. It has also seen an increasing number of people turning up to give it support. Last year’s event reportedly attracted 25,000 people.
“Pink is the colour of our ICs,” the group’s Facebook page says. “It is also the colour when you mix red and white – the colours of our national flag. Pink Dot stands for an open, inclusive society within our Red Dot, where sexual orientation represents a feature, not a barrier.”
An inclusive society is also the aim of the Lee Hsien Loong Government which has repeatedly urged Singaporeans to see one another as one people, and has boasted of its inclusive policies.
Mr Lee, however, raised recently some ire among those in the gay community for comments he made about same-sex marriage and the gay community.
In an interview with ASEAN journalists in Singapore earlier in June, he said Singapore society “is still conservative although it is changing gradually” and that it is “not ready” for same-sex marriage, as the Straits Times reported.
But, Mr Lee said, the gay community have the space to live their lives in Singapore.
“We do not harass them or discriminate against them,” he explained.
This seemingly more conciliatory position of the Government first came into the spotlight in 2003, when then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong caused a bit of an uproar among conservative circles when he said the government was employing openly gay people in the civil service.
Mr Goh famously said then: “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.”
Critics, however, point to the presence and retention of Singapore’s anti-gay law, section 377a of the Penal Code. The law criminalises sex between adult males.
Mr Lee said that the gay community “should not push the agenda too hard because if they push the agenda too hard, there will be a very strong pushback.”
“And this is not an issue where there is a possibility that the two sides can discuss and eventually come to a consensus. Now, these are very entrenched views and the more you discuss, the angrier people get,” he said.
Pink Dot, in response to Mr Lee’s remarks, said that while it acknowledged Mr Lee’s concerns – given Singapore’s unique position as a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society, there will be a plurality of viewpoints, some deeply entrenched – it nonetheless feels that “it is not a topic that can be swept under the carpet and allowed to fester.”
Lee
“We firmly believe that dialogue is our best way forward,” Pink Dot said. “As such, we would like to invite Prime Minister Lee to join us in celebrating the Freedom to Love, this Saturday, June 13, at Hong Lim Park, and meet with the individuals, families, and loving couples who form a vibrant part of Singapore’s social fabric.”
Mr Lee’s office has not responded to the invitation publicly.
Pink Dot also noted that racial and religious minorities are protected under the constitution.
“Whether Singapore will eventually abolish Section 377a and create a society truly based on justice and equality, that values all contributing citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; a lot will depend on fostering goodwill and encouraging respect among groups and individuals.”
Will Mr Lee accept Pink Dot’s invitation and turn up at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, in the name of inclusiveness or fostering an inclusive society? Should he?
Well, if we go by what his government itself has said – that it wants to build an inclusive society – and what is declared in our National Pledge – that we “pledge ourselves as one united people… to build a democratic society based on justice and equality” – then there is no reason for Mr Lee to decline the invitation.
But of course if Mr Lee accepts the invite, it will be seen by the conservatives as a sign of support, or at least of tacit endorsement of the gay community.
Indeed, Pink Dot’s invitation could also be seen as putting Mr Lee on the spot, perhaps nudging him to take a stand, instead of the fence-sitting one he currently adopts when it comes to gay issues.
Whatever it is, it will an interesting Saturday indeed.
