My Written Submissions for Today’s Hearing on the Defamation Suit Over Singaporeans’ CPF

Today was my hearing for the defamation suit. Justice Lee Seiu Kin heard the case today. He has reserved judgment and will give his judgment in due course.

You can see below my written submissions, which are documents which summarises the relevant facts of the case.

There are two parts to the written submissions.

(1) The first part contains arguments to state the real intent of my article and the statements which are not defamatory.

“It is the Defendant’s case therefore that a fair reading of the Article as a whole does not give rise to the pleaded meaning. While the Article does start off controversially, it becomes clear to the reader having read the whole article that he is not accusing the Plaintiff of any criminal wrongdoing but rather, expressing his opinion that the legal retention of profits from derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans. That is the true natural and ordinary meaning of the Article taken as a whole. No reasonable reader having read the whole article would go away with the impression that the Plaintiff is stealing monies or behaving in a manner prohibited by law! The Defendant therefore humbly urges the Court to rule against the Plaintiff on the pleaded meaning and dismiss the Plaintiff’s application and action.”

PDF Link: Roy Ngerng’s Written Submissions 4 September 2014

“As we have stated above, the Defendant’s case is that the Article read as a whole does not convey to the reasonable reader that the Plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation, as the gist of the Article is that the Government channels CPF monies to various entities (Temasek Holdings, GIC and MAS) and invests the CPF monies and make profits from these investments and enriches itself and its reserves by not returning all profits made from the use of CPF monies to CPF account holders, but retaining part of the profits instead. This puts in perspective, provides the context and is the antidote to the pictorial comparison between the Plaintiff’s relationship with GIC, MAS, Temasek and the CPF Funds with the pictorial description of the persons alleged to have misappropriated monies from the City Harvest Church. The Plaintiff does not and cannot argue that the Government is not legally allowed to retain these profits. Neither would a reasonable person reading the Article as a whole come to the conclusion that the Government is doing something legally wrong in retaining these profits, and that the Plaintiff, as head of the Government, the GIC and the spouse of the Head of Temasek Holdings is guilty of criminal misappropriation.”

“With respect, the Plaintiff’s submission on this point as set out in paragraph 85 is completely disingenuous. The reasonable reader knows that the Plaintiff is the head of the Singapore Government and the Head of GIC. The ordinary reader also knows that the Plaintiff’s wife heads Temasek Holdings. It is clear therefore that any reference to the Singapore Government would be relevant in interpreting what the pictorial representations mean and it is not open to the Plaintiff, as head of the Government to argue that the later portion of the Article is irrelevant in interpreting the Article as a whole as the Government is a separate entity from him.”

“It is the Defendant’s case therefore that unless it could be said that it is legally wrong for the Government to channel CPF monies to various entities (Temasek Holdings, GIC and MAS), invest the CPF monies and make profits from these investments and enrich itself and its reserves by not returning all profits made from the use of CPF monies to CPF account holders, the Article clearly does not leave the ordinary reader with the impression that the Plaintiff has done something wrong, much less, is guilty of criminal misappropriation.”

PDF Link: Roy Ngerng’s Reply Written Submissions to Lee Hsien Loong’s Reply Submissions 15 September 2014

(2) The second part contains the constitutional argument.

“It is the Defendant’s submission that by virtue of Article 14 of the Constitution (Cap Const, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution), the common laws of defamation ceased to apply in Singapore unless Parliament, by law, specifically provides for it.”

“It is necessary at the outset to note that the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the Defamation Act”) does not meet the Freedom of Speech Guarantee’s requirements. The Defamation Act does not restrict the citizen’s freedom of speech and expression, simply because it does not provide that defamation is cause of action. The Defamation Act merely provides for various defences to be available which were not available at common law, and for various procedural matters.”

PDF Link: Roy Ngerng’s Defamation Suit’s Constitutional Argument Main

“We reiterate at the outset that the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the Defamation Act”) does not satisfy the Freedom of Speech Guarantee’s requirement that “Parliament may, by law, impose… restrictions…” This is because the Defamation Act does not purport to restrict speech at all. All that it does, as the Plaintiff helpfully points out, is to provide for certain modifications and qualifications for a restriction of speech – the common law of defamation – that supposedly already exists.”

“The Plaintiff is right in not arguing that the cause of action of defamation had actually been enacted by the Defamation Act. It does not follow from the fact that Parliament enacts legislation modifying, or with the assumption of an existing body of law, that therefore Parliament enacted that existing body of law. By definition, by assuming an existing body of law (and therefor not positively providing for it), Parliament cannot simultaneously enact that existing body of law.”

PDF Link: Roy Ngerng’s Defamation Suit’s Constitutional Argument Reply

I also managed to do some quick drawings on my notebook.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin

Davinder Singh

M Ravi

Court Hearing 18 September 2014

Advertisements

69 comments

  1. Jim

    Question – Did you retract your apology? If so, is it acceptable since you still said that it stand in your defense (latest that we know of) so you can argue that you do not defame, whether intentional or not.
    If not, you admit that you are guilty of defamation. So, did you retract your apology?
    I am free to write this because of freedom of speech but I cannot accuse you of ..(.. ) without you challenging me to prove my allegation.

    • reply Jim

      1)
      apology?
      — 提供线索人向涉嫌盗窃者坐道歉 ?还是捉贼人向窃贼做道歉 ? 先要搞清楚。

      — eyewitness apologized to the Thief ?

      2)
      guilty of defamation ?

      — 如果全部事实和问题被称为诽谤,那么李光耀的全部历史都是假的, 因为这些事实和他不兑现承诺的档案, 都摆在图书馆的书架上, Roy只是做了,把书架上的字读出来。 这不是Roy的错。犯错的一方是李光耀家族。

      过去50年来,诽谤罪在新加坡是李家对人民的一种私刑, 这种害国害民,浪费国家财富的李家私刑, 不仅玷污了新加坡司法的名声,而且被国际列明黑名单。

      不给新加坡人增光的,羞辱国人的私刑, 但立刻废除。

      If all the facts and issues are called defamation, then the entire history of the Lee Kuan Yew is false, because these facts, and he did not honor his commitments files are placed on library shelves, Roy just did, read the word of the books on the shelves .

      It’s not Roy’s fault. Mistakes party is Lee Kuan Yew family.

      Over the past 50 years, Lee’s libel case in Singapore is one kind of lynching. he harm the people of this country , waste of national wealth,

      Lee’s lynching, not only tarnished the reputation of the Singapore judiciary, Being blacklisted by the international Judiciary.

      Lee’s libel case lynching, give negative credit of Singapore, It humiliate the people of Singapore, shall be immediately abolished.

      3)
      不管谁,用人民的钱告人民,本身就是错。 走到哪里都是输家。何况李显龙过去10年,从来不向人民做财政报告,并害怕提问, 是心里有鬼,错上加错。建议法官,判李显龙赔偿小民Roy被剥夺工作后的一切损失。并要李显龙立刻辞职。

      讲清楚淡马锡发家与人民CPF本钱投资的关系
      理清谁才是要被关进牢房里面的那个人 !
      应该是李显龙和何晶, 而不是新加坡人民.
      上天要他们坐牢一次, 公正不屈的司法威力为新加坡人民活一次。

      No matter who you are, using people’s money or state’s money to sue someone, is itself wrong.
      Wherever you are , you are the losers.
      Moreover, Lee Hsien Loong in the past 10 years, never made ​​national financial report , he is afraid of questions, is ulterior mistake.

      Recommended that the judge sentenced Lee Lee Hsien Loong compensate for all losses of Roy , for LEE deprived Roy’s job. And forced Lee resign immediately.

      Clear up the relationship of Temasek fortune with the People’s CPF capital investment.
      Sort out who is the one to be put into a jail .

      Is Lee Hsien Loong and Ho ching. rather than the people of Singapore.
      God want them to go to jail once, Impartial judicial power unyielding live once for the people of Singapore.

      • Jim

        So you agree that Roy call PM a thief. I think many people including people for him think that he call LHL a thief.

      • Jim

        It is the Defendant’s case that it would be absurd to say that any reasonable person reading the whole article would come away with the impression that the Plaintiff has committed criminal breach of trust or had behaved unlawfully in any manner!
        Are you a reasonable person?

    • Easy

      Why center on the word “APOLOGY” ? IMO Mr Ravi is a experience & good lawyer, I don’t think he will misled his client with poor/wrong advise. I have confidence in him knowing how to doing the right thing.

      • reply to Jim

        Jim,
        你作为李总理的发言人, 你们最初拒绝道歉在先,你坚持并送交法庭,为此,你必须通过Roy的法律顾问,你现在在这里发表意见很不适合。

        问题不是Roy可以解决的,是全体人民要看淡马锡的审计。这没什么大不了的,反正你的总理都没有错吗,害怕什么呢 ?

        希望你配合。
        Jim,
        Roy have right to write his feeling inside of his blog. It is protected by the Constitution
        You, as a spokeswoman of Prime Minister Lee,
        is you, initially refused our apologize and you stick to court, for any of your demanding , you must through Roy’s legal adviser, you are here to express your views is very unfit.

        by now, Roy can not solve your problem, all the people want is Temasek audits. This is no big deal, anyway, your PM always very perfect , no need to fear it?

        we hope you cooperation.

  2. apple tree

    Good guy Roy,
    Your stories make us cry
    Because you have a diligent and wise father
    we love you, love your father
    people love you, love your family
    the people of Singaporeans are in your side Unswervingly !
    You make our eyes kept tearing…..

    Eat more nutrition, take care of your father , and your own health
    Merciful Lord Jesus, you must help our people ‘s son — Roy in any way of his life……

  3. averageguysg

    It’s well written. Not that I know much of the law. But if this had been the stance above right from the start, I’d wager you have a chance of taking it beyond the summary judgement and into a hearing. Then, it would have been fair game to argue against PM Lee that you are not defaming him.

    But like Jim asked, did you retract your apology? It is a bit confusing if you said your apology still stands and is understood to mean the post is defamatory, while you try and argue that “no one would realise that it was defamation”.

    While I might speak against your methods in an earlier post, I do not wish to see anyone bankrupted. I think, let’s take Chee Soon Juan as a precedent and note that LKY did not ask for more than $30000 from him for libel. Let’s hope it will not be more than that, if it comes to that.

    Good Luck.

    • Rachel Tan

      Not a fair comment. If someone got intimidated into admission of a crime such as murder, does the admission count? Or does the law look at evidence and decide?

      The question that we should ask is “rule of law” or “rule by law”? Sillyporeans are not called daft for nothing.

      • Rachel Tan

        If justice is blind, the court just need to pass motion without looking at the facts of the case. In that case, we are no different from the courts in Qing dynasty.

      • averageguysg

        Rule of law. PM Lee is within his legal rights to sue for damages. Rule by law. Did he have to? My answer would be no.

        But that’s been done anyway.

        As for being intimidated, all Roy received was a lawyer’s letter. Not being arrested, tortured, property confiscated, etc. Even when he did lose his job it was weeks later when it happened. So let’s not get carried away?

        But ok, let’s say he was intimidated. So withdraw the apology now. Try to make the case for it to not count. And then it makes better sense in the defence given, no?

      • Rachel Tan

        So if someone beat you up until you say sorry to him, you got no case to sue him since you already apologise? Looks like our resident PAP supporters are not capable of any intellectual discourse.

      • Rachel Tan

        @ averageguysg, the apology and its retraction or non-retraction got nothing to do with the defamation itself. It is just a side show for people for care about the rules to debate. The main issue is whether the defamation suit has any merits. Do you get it?

      • Xmen

        @averageguysg,

        “Rule of law” – Seriously? The “law” was designed and abused by PAP to silent dissent. Yes, Slavery was lawful once upon a time too. Have you seen this particular “law” being used anywhere else but in Singapore. Need I elaborate more?

        You are naïve to believe that Roy had a choice to not apologize under the circumstances. It is widely known that innocent people have been forced to confess in front of TV cameras in Singapore. Do you seriously believe that Gopalan Nair had a choice when he apologized in Singapore?

  4. Jim

    Roy, did you realise that when Singaporean read your posts and think their CPF is being cheated etc by the PAP government of which LHL is the executive head, you have to agree that you defame him. Funny thing when Oracle and others write in to rebut then maybe, I said MAYBE, you can said you are not guilty. So all that are for you is actually against you.

    • Audit Temasek

      李小龙靠用几个女人左右人民的意愿吗 ?
      Lee depends on a few female surrounding ?
      ok, People want to have a clean slate
      now we want to see Lee’s Audit — Audit Temasek ,
      没有审计淡马锡,诽谤案不能揭晓 !
      Audit Temasek , that only evidence of this judgement .
      No audit Temasek, libel can not be announced !

      we want Audit Temasek !!!!!!!!

    • Easy

      I, for one have never think that our CPF is being cheated by the PAP government of which LHL is the executive head after reading all the posting by RN. Being a reasonable person reading the whole article & accepting it in the whole context I would come away with the impression that the Plaintiff has NOT committed criminal breach of trust or had behaved unlawfully in any manner BUT if I choose only a certain paragraph then it is libel

  5. visitor

    LEE ‘s Temasek took CPF for investment without CPF owners agreement, i think it is dishonest behavior.
    thief or not thief, Suspects or recidivist ?
    depends on the action of LEE ‘s Temasek money return back or not ?

    our CPF, we only agree for our welfare together
    not agree for Lee’s Temasek took away

    thief or not thief, , action is the answer !

  6. Fair game.

    If Chee Soon Juan could cross-examined LKY, why cant Roy cross-examined LHL? Is there something he is hiding or is he afraid to be cross-examined?

    • averageguysg

      That could happen if the summary judgement falls through and both parties meet in court.

      PM Lee has little fear of being cross examined in this case. He doesn’t have to answer anything not related to the case. All he has to do, is prove that he did not misappropriate funds, and also try to prove that Roy implied he was misappropriating funds.

      I’m afraid the people who thought that the court case was going to be one big CPF show might be disappointed if that happens.

      • Xmen

        @averageguysg,

        “All he has to do, is prove that he did not misappropriate funds” – Please explain how he will do that. Take his word as the Gospel Truth? You are an idiot! Hahaha.

  7. reply Jim

    偷还没有偷 ?
    不是你说, 我说, 他说,他们说,
    法律如果听三姑六婆说。就是道听途说。

    法律要看动作 -- PM做了吗 ?
    做了什么?说明了什么 ?
    他有没有未经公积金主人同意,动用了人民的财产呢 ?

    他动用了吗 ?
    不是你说, 我说, 他说,他们说。
    法律不听三姑六婆说, 道听途说。

    要看动作 -- PM做了吗 ?
    这就是答案.

    吃政府饭的女人没有常识. 怎么让人民信任你

    Stealing is not stealing?
    Not what you say, I say, he said, they said,
    If the law listen to gossip. Is hearsay.

    Law depends on – what Prime Minister had done ?
    What he had done in the past ?
    what reflect the question ?

    he took our CPF away for his wife’s profit without notice the owners . it that right behavior ?

    Law want to see the action . what action of Lee did in the past ?

    Woman no common sense but got high job in Lee’s office. How disgrace Singaporeans trust.

  8. reply Jim

    看动作 -- 这是法律。
    看他做了什么, 有没有在不告知的情形下,拿人民公积金去给他老婆做生意, 做排名世界第一有钱的女人.
    看他们的动作 -- 这是法律 — 看动作。
    法律不是八婆。

    See action – this is the law.
    Look at what he did, there is no case without informed, he took people’s CPF to his wife’s interests, ranking first richest womanin in the World

    Look at his actions – this is the law, rather than the gossip.

    • Jim

      It is the Defendant’s case that it would be absurd to say that any reasonable person reading the whole article would come away with the impression that the Plaintiff has committed criminal breach of trust or had behaved unlawfully in any manner!
      Are you a reasonable person?

      • reply to Jim

        no matter the reading manners
        the matter that what PM has done.
        he done nothing with divert our CPF into Temasek, he is a good PM,
        otherwise, he is dishonest PM, an dishonest man may step down from the office leadership .

        from this case, we feel your PM play law very well,
        he sued our child
        but he did not care about it
        never appear to our question

        we are curious, why your PM never mind, but you are so anxious ?
        who are you, Miss ?

  9. The Oracle

    @Jim

    I agree Roy’s fans on this blog will bring about Roy’s downfall – as their calls for LHL to be tried, imprisoned, etc. prove LHL’s argument that he has been defamed by Roy.

    • reply "The Oracle"

      ” argument ” is not the LAW’s subject
      the subject is

      1. had Prime Minister taken away our CPF into his wife’s company ? had he informed our owner ?

      yes or not ?

      2. how much he took away, and how much he got the profit from it ?

      3, had he paid a dime profit back to CPF owner’s account ?

      that is the subject

      without clear up this argument
      诽谤无从谈起.
      Defamation case is a game. old trap, harm people for his own interests . nothing meaningful

      • Jim

        It is the Defendant’s case that it would be absurd to say that any reasonable person reading the whole article would come away with the impression that the Plaintiff has committed criminal breach of trust or had behaved unlawfully in any manner!
        Are you a reasonable person? Roy think that you are not. I think that you are.

  10. reply "The Oracle"

    anyone has them own wishes , someone wish to be more greedy
    someone wish to kill some greedy. that was rules of this World

  11. 向老人家问好

    (联合早报讯)高庭法官李兆坚今早在内堂就是否针对李显龙总理起诉博客鄞义林诽谤的案件作即席判决,听了双方律师的陈情。他决定保留判决,择日下判。
    代表李显龙总理的高级律师文达星和代表鄞义林的律师拉维,今早向法官作了三小时半的陈词。
    鄞义林的父母、姐姐及20多名支持者,在法庭外给他精神上的支持。
    今年5月15日,鄞义林在署名博客“The Heart Truths”刊登一则题为“你的公积金款项去了哪里?城市丰收教会审讯的启示”的博文,影射李总理身为新加坡政府投资公司(GIC)主席,失信了国人公积金户头里的款项。
    三天后(18日),李总理向他发出律师信,并于同月29日正式起诉鄞义林。这是本地领导人首次向涉嫌诽谤他的博客发出诉状,索取赔偿。
    上月17日,鄞义林在答辩书中称,既然他已承认对李总理的指责是虚假且毫无根据的,李总理就没有起诉他和要求赔偿的必要与理由。
    他的另一论据是,在接到李总理的律师信后,已应总理要求公开道歉、删除四则相关博文,并承诺今后不再做出同样指责。(本报记者:游润恬)

    —————— ????????????????

    什么时候有属于新加坡人民自己的报纸呢,有人拿人民公积金的利益买下了联合早报,因此,自说自话。

    让我们来拆穿西洋镜:
    1)
    ” 这是本地领导人首次向涉嫌诽谤他的博客发出诉状,索取赔偿。”
    ——– 错, 这是李家第24次拿国人的钱告国人。创下国家领导人告人民次数最多百科大全世界第一大奖

    2)
    ” 李总理向他发出律师信,索取赔偿。”

    ————– 对, 他李总理向一个无业的国民开口要钱, 他怎么开的出口呢 ?人们对他拿天价20万月薪早就不满了,他还嫌Roy赔给他5000新币不够 ?这到底是就绑匪嘛, 联合早报只讲对李家有利, 对人民不利。真相只写一半 。

    3)
    ” 在接到李总理的律师信后,已应总理要求公开道歉、删除四则相关博文,并承诺今后不再做出同样指责。”
    ———— 不够,这已经不是Roy个人的问题,新加坡不是李显龙的, 也不是Roy的, 是人民的。现在人民要审计淡马锡, 没有审计淡马锡, 新加坡人CPF被骗案没有揭晓。

    4)
    鄞义林的父母、姐姐及20多名支持者,在法庭外给他精神上的支持。
    ———— 这行字才是唯一温暖动情之处,感动我们, 向老人家问好, 我们祝福老人家健康长寿。要乐观起来,您们的儿子又有很多发展空间,将大有出息 。

  12. reply "The Oracle"

    争议,诽谤,这些都只是一个形容词。 在新加坡的过去, 司法被一堆形容词包围。 是被人玩弄了, 非常错的。
    司法不以形容词揣摩。而是看一件事的事实。

    这个事实是,淡马锡和李显龙的金钱关系,
    淡马锡和人民的公积金的金钱关系。
    理清了关系, 不是依靠某个形容词, 而是调查事实的真相。
    这样案子就结了。

    人们生气, 是李总理企图隐瞒真相。为什么要隐瞒呢 ?
    不要把利益还给人民, 告来告去,终究还是欠人民的债。

    Controversy, slander, argument, defamation , ….etc. these are just an adjective.
    In Singapore the past, justice is surrounded by a bunch of adjectives. Is very wrong.
    Justice is not to try to figure out by any of adjectives.

    But by the fact that one thing.
    The fact is, the money relationship between Lee Hsien Loong and Temasek, the money relations between Temasek and the people ‘s CPF.

    Clarify above 2 relations, instead of relying on an adjective, but to investigate the truth.
    Such cases would end up.

    People get angry, because Prime Minister Lee attempts to hide the truth. Why hide it?
    Do not pay back the interests to the people , going to sue & sue , after all, the debt owed you Prime Lee owed ​​the people still existing.

  13. 在线追踪

    调查显示,李光耀曾今每次打赢官司,就是靠他把没有事实的东西,拿来引用很多形容词取胜, 法庭也是依靠他满口的形容词判案, 比如,他说惹耶勒兰是华文沙文主义, 于是他拿走了惹耶勒兰的一切,包括生命。

    再比如,他说邓亮洪是种族主义,于是, 他拿走了邓亮洪的家园
    再比如,他说徐顺全是共产主义,于是,他搞到徐顺全破产。

    这些都看不见,摸不着的东西, 都是莫须有的, 哪里有事实依据呢 ?

    都没有事实,一堆形容词。 都可以置人死地。
    发生在第一世界新加坡, 是不是一个讽刺啊。

    什么华文沙文主义 ? 那是华人统治的独裁者, 不是人家印度族民主人士。 什么种族主义 ? 那是绝对排外的种族, 哪里是人家律师邓亮洪嘛, 什么共产主义 ? 那是指人人平等的社会, 也不该迫害人家徐顺全教授破产嘛。

    这都是无稽之谈, 都是做恶多端 。

    真是一堆形容词害死一批新加坡人。他们都是好人, 既没偷抢,也没贪污。
    以此可见 — 愚昧 。

  14. 献给李光耀生日礼物

    这种讽刺李光耀的喜剧拍一部电影, 在全球播放很卖座哦,现在缺少一位扮演惹耶勒南的妻子, 没有她的照片, 其他人, 比如李光耀,李显龙,大法官, 等都有演员。

    这部戏还要把50年代的受害者找出来, 比如林清祥,Lim Hock Siew, 傅树楷医生、林福寿、陈蒙鹤等受英文教育的高级知识分子, 还有萧天寿 . 怎么借法官之手把人家害死的,怎樣打败对手,赶去家园,自己独霸, 大家非常想念他。献给李光耀生日礼物.

  15. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    LEE Seiu Kin studied Civil Engineering at the University of Adelaide on a Colombo Plan Scholarship. Upon his return in 1977, he joined the Engineering Service and was posted to the Public Works Department where he was involved in the construction of Changi airport and Tengah airbase.

    While with PWD, he studied part-time at the NUS and obtained an M.Sc.(Construction Engrg.) in 1982. He then studied at INSEAD, France under a French government postgraduate scholarship and obtained an M.B.A.(Distinction) in 1983. He obtained his registration as a Professional Engineer in 1983. From 1983 to 1984, he was seconded to INDECO Engineers Pte Ltd, a government-linked company providing engineering services.

    Between 1984 and 1987, Seiu Kin read law and obtained an LL.B.(Hons) from the National University of Singapore and an LL.M. from Cambridge University. He joined the Singapore Legal Service in 1987. He was admitted as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in January 1991.

    From 1987 to 1997, Seiu Kin was posted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He was attached to the Crime Division for two years before moving to the Civil Division. In 1995 he was appointed concurrently the Deputy Head of the Civil Division and the newly formed International Affairs Division.Seiu Kin was also the Director of the Computer Information Systems Department of the Attorney-General’s Chambers from 1989, in which capacity he was oversaw the computerisation of the Chambers. In 1991, he was appointed Project Director of LawNet, the computer system for the legal sector in Singapore. For his services in the computerisation of the Chambers and in LawNet, Seiu Kin was awarded the Public Administration (Silver) medal in 1996.

    Seiu Kin was a member of the National Internet Advisory Committee (NIAC), between 1996 and 1997. During this period he served as the chairman of its Legal Sub-Committee. From 1996 to 1997, Seiu Kin was a member of the board of directors of International Development and Consultancy Pte Ltd, a Temasek Holdings company.

    On 15 October 1997 Seiu Kin was seconded to the Supreme Court as Judicial Commissioner, in which capacity he served until 14 October 2002. He was also concurrently appointed the President, Industrial Arbitration Court
    from 1 September 1999 to 14 October 2002. On 15 October 2002, Seiu Kin was appointed to his present post of second Solicitor-General. In this capacity he oversees the Criminal Justice Division and Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s Chambers as well as its Computer Information Systems Department. He also holds appointments in statutory bodies: he is a member of the board of the Competition Commission of Singapore and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. He also chairs the LawNet Management Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law. Seiu Kin is an arbitrator in the Regional Panel of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

    1 January 2006, Mr Lee Seiu Kin was appointed to the MAS Board of Directors.

    Justice Lee Seiu Kin was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court in April 2006, after having served as Second Solicitor-General from 2002 to 2006 and as Judicial Commissioner form 1997 to 2002.

    ;

    1. Please do not comment on the legal case if you do not know whether u will be committing sub-judice or not.

    2. Please also do not comment on the Judge if you do not know whether u will be guilty of Contempt of court or not.

    3. This is not an invitation to discuss the ongoing legal case or the Judge, just sharing information for those who might be interested.

    • lindsay

      Hey big frog, it is very easy to leave disclaimers like these, but you do the public no favour by not explaining to them what constitutes sub-judice. This is one way the PAP use to silence the public from commenting on anything under the sun. Please do more research, since you are so fee, and enlighten everyone. For a start, Singapore inherits its law from the common law in UK. From http://www.out-law.com/page-9742 here is what the UK says:

      Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.

      There are two forms of contempt of court:

      statutory contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which criminalises the publication of material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced; and
      common law contempt, which targets any other action which is intended to interfere with the administration of justice, including interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings.

      Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings. Accordingly, any of the following activities could be considered to be contempt:

      obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
      filming or recording within court buildings;
      making payments to witnesses;
      publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
      reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;
      mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
      reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
      breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
      anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
      revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.

      However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day’s legal proceedings.

  16. Score

    Sometimes the river flows but nothing breathes
    A train arrives but crowded space, it’s a shame
    Oh, life like love that’s walked out of the door
    Of richest or poorest, Formatting by shamed

    But it’s then, then that faith arrives
    To make your feelings alive
    And that’s why, you should keep on aiming high
    Just seek you will shine

    In this life, long and hard though it may seem
    Live it as you’d live a dream, aim tough
    Just keep the flame of truth burning bright
    something missing you must find

    You will never walk alone
    Build a bridge across the stream
    Weave your spell in life’s rich tapestry
    Your soul to a feeling supreme

  17. Jim

    Roy’s defence is that when his readers read his complete post, it is not defamatory.
    He did not alleged any criminal action. But look at what his readers think in his blog. Other blogs, magazine???

  18. averageguysg

    @ Rachel Tan

    Actually, I do get that there is little merit in this lawsuit. But I don’t get that Roy has necessarily been beaten down until he has had to say sorry. From the looks of it, he’s pretty defiant now, and I do think he has a case to overturn the summary judgement and taking it to court.

    @ Xmen

    I merely pointed out that that is all Lee has to prove. How he will prove it, is up to his lawyers. That you immediately want to say that I take his word as a gospel truth shows that you cannot get your head around labelling me as a PAP crony, a label which I think I have grounds to reject totally.

    Look people, you talk about public discourse. So did I come in here like Alan or some other obvious PAP IBs and immediately call Roy shameless, or mock him as an idiot? No. I question Roy’s methods because I care about the way discourse is developing in society. I compare him to other advocates and social activists out there because I believe his outreach will be greater if he were more like them.

    In return, I am immediately stereotyped as an idiot, PAP follower, or someone who doesn’t understand or care about the plight of poor Singaporeans, etc. How about that for public discourse? How to have even a slight difference in opinion when the moment I say something different to you, I’m an idiot. And guess what, we don’t even disagree fundamentally, we disagree only in the way in which things are being done.

    But it’s alright. I’m not here to convince folks who can’t be convinced. If I’m here, I leave my comments, for people to read and think. They think its crap, fine. But at least they think. Roy’s blog is “to keep Singaporeans thinking.” Well, he made me think. Those who don’t think, are those who immediately want to pull out the “IB”, “PAP dog” tag and wave it around at people.

    Be seeing ya.

    • Xmen

      @averageguysg,

      A couple comments –

      1. When Alex Au receives a letter from the you know who, do you think he can refuse to comply? Do you think Roy had a choice not to “apologize”?

      2. When you “merely” pointed out that ““All he has to do, is prove that he did not misappropriate funds,” you are being either naïve or dishonest. How would he prove that without opening the books? It ain’t going to happen. You now turned around and accused me of labelling you as a PAP crony. Please point me to that remark labelling averageguysg as such or stop the diverting the topic like the other Oracle here.

    • Rachel Tan

      It could be a mistake. It could also be a damage control measure. You never know how the court is going to decide on the case.

    • Alan

      Don’t put yourself too high on the pedestal! Those who dislike Roy are not necessary a PAP IB or whatever u like to call!

      Looking @ Roy cronies starting to abuse anyone when the opposes show even a bit of deviation made me feel that there are not in for discussion. But to force their ideology down ur throat! You have enjoyed their hospitality during ur short stunt here!

      Don’t blame others for using their method on Roy n the dogs!

  19. Easy

    After reading today submission, I find that RN is begging the gvt to pay a high return ($300000) to the CPF holders from their LEGAL earnings by Temasek & GIC. At no point did he mentioned PM LHL name; why then PM LHL is soooooooooooo sensitive, soooooooooooooo guilty conscious to undertake the non-existence blame upon himself? If RN is completely wrong, it shd be the whole board (both Temasek & GIC) to sue RN.

  20. reply to Jim


    It is the Defendant’s case that it would be absurd to say that any reasonable person reading the whole article would come away with the impression that the Plaintiff has committed criminal breach of trust or had behaved unlawfully in any manner!
    Are you a reasonable person? Roy think that you are not. I think that you are.

    Roy’s defence is that when his readers read his complete post, it is not defamatory.
    He did not alleged any criminal action. But look at what his readers think in his blog. Other blogs, magazine???”
    ————————-
    Jim,
    we read above your comments , you repeat the same for 3 times.

    1. go through, can see that you are good girl , help a lot in this case, thank you.
    2. sometimes we are emotional too, in the end, you are not the decision maker.
    3. look, Roy’s case, his father and mother never had good sleep since then, many of us never have good sleep. that was pain . the Price was beyond Words.
    4. anyone will mistake in life, want to solve this issues ? both party give a Space, resptect Roy and his parents
    if you can do something, my personal thinking , you can give Roy personal conversation , face to face , Heart to Heart . PM must be Humble , that is a right leadership’s style .

  21. teoenming

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Want Teo En Ming Dead

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming dead. Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming to die young. I am only 36 years old. I do not want to die young. I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!!

    Teo En Ming has filed an official complaint against the Singapore Government at the United Nations Human Rights Council Branch and the International Criminal Court. Read the letter here:

    **********************************************************************************************************************
    **********************************************************************************************************************
    **********************************************************************************************************************

    Teo En Ming’s Open Letter (Plea for Medical Help/Assistance) to World Leaders dated 27 Aug 2010. Read the letter here:

    http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/mpich-discuss/2010-August/007811.html

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Singapore Citizen
    Republic of Singapore

  22. Pingback: [Update Four 160316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  23. Pingback: [Update Five 170316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  24. Pingback: [Update Six 180316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  25. Pingback: [Update Seven 190316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  26. Pingback: [Update Eight 210316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  27. Pingback: [Update Nine 220316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  28. Pingback: [Update Ten 230316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  29. Pingback: [Update Eleven 250316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | The Heart Truths
  30. Pingback: A Short Note on Budget 2016 and Update Twelve of Defamation Funds | The Heart Truths
  31. Pingback: Thoughts on CPF and Update Thirteen of Defamation Funds | The Heart Truths
  32. Pingback: How Much Singaporeans Should Earn and Update Fourteen of Defamation Funds | The Heart Truths
  33. Pingback: Update 15 of Defamation Funds & All-You-Need-to-Know Singapore Statistics | The Heart Truths
  34. Pingback: Defamation Funds Update 18: I Still Have to Pay the Prime Minister S$149,800 | The Heart Truths
  35. Pingback: Defamation Funds Update 19 | The Heart Truths

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s