有关昨天(9月18日)关于新加坡人民的公积金问题诽谤诉讼案件的意见汇报

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

昨天负责审理我的诽谤起诉案件的主审法官是李兆坚。他保留判决并将在稍后判决。

Yesterday 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.

我在下面撰写的意见是我汇整了有关本案件的一些资料。请您阅读

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

这里一共分成两部分。

There are two parts to the written submissions.

一、第一部分包括了说明我的文章真正意图不是在诽谤任何人。

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

“这是一起诽谤案件,因此客观阅读全部有关的文章是没有引起辩护的意图。这些文章并没有挑起具有争议的课题。读者在阅读了这些文章后并没有引起指责原告犯上任何的错误罪行。而宁可说这是起源于政府对待新加坡人不公平而表达的意见。这就是;GIC和淡马锡控股使用了公积金的钱进行投资后截留了所取得合法利润。这是完整文章所表达的确实事实和正确意思的意图。读者在阅读了这些文章后不会毫无根据地说原告是偷走这些钱或者在某种意义上是被罚款所禁止的。被告要求法院驳回原告的辩护意图和拒绝原告的申请和行动。”

“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.”

请到如下网址阅读:鄞义林于9月4日撰写的意见书

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

“正如我们在上述所说,被告的案件是完整的文章并没有表达给正常的读者关于原告是犯了侵占的刑事罪行。正如所有文章所要表达的原意是政府把公积金的钱引入到各个不同的实体(淡马锡控股和金融管理局)进行投资,并从这些投资中获得了利润让自己自肥,但是他们并没有把那些通过使用公积金户头进行投资所取得的所有利润归还给公积金会员,反过来是截留了这些利润。”

“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.

这样的说法是正确的。它的文章的内容提供解析的描绘了政府与GIC、金融管理局、淡马锡控股和公积金之间的关系的叙述,与描绘城市丰收教会的被告被指控涉嫌非法侵占教会的资金。原告并没有也无法争论有关政府并没有被合法赋予截留这些利润。任何一个正常的读者在阅读这些完整的文章后所得出的结论是政府在执行截留利润的措施在法律上是错误的,本案的原告,身为政府、GIC的首脑和淡马锡控股的伙伴首脑是犯了涉嫌侵占的行为。

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.”

“尊重原告在意见书第85段里提出的这个问题。是一个极其虚伪的观点。只要具有正常知识的读者都会知道,原告就是政府的首脑和GIC的首脑。一般的读者有人会知道,原告的妻子就是淡马锡控股的首脑。这就非常清楚的说明,任何涉及新加坡政府的(事务)都必然会被解读为这是代表政府的说法。这并不是针对原告而言。作为政府的首脑在后来的文章里争论说成是这些文章所叙述的他与整个政府(运作)是没有关系和完全分开的。”

“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.”

“这是案件是属于辩方的,除非它说政府把公积金的钱引入不同的实体(淡马锡控股、GIC和金融管理局)、使用公积金的钱进行投资并从中获得了利润,以及自肥自己、他们使用公积金进行投资所得没有归还给公积金会员。这些文章非常清楚的让一般读者在阅读后并没有产生一个印象说,原告已经做错了一些事情,更不用说,多少是犯了侵占罪。”

“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.”

请见链接:鄞义林答复李显龙于915日提交的意见书撰写的意见网址。

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

二、第二部分包括了宪法的争论

2) The second part contains the constitutional argument.

“辩方的意见是由于依据宪法第14章(Article 14 of the Constitution (Cap Const, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution)),在新加坡,关于申请终终止普通发诽谤的申请,除非获得国会、法律有特别约定”

“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.”

“这是从一开始就需要对诽谤法令((Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the Defamation Act”) )做诠释,这并不符合言论自由的要求。诽谤法令并没有限制公民有言论和表达的自由。简单而言,法令并不是作为原告起诉被告的理由诽谤法令仅仅是提供了各种防御的存在,但是不适用于普通法和其他各种程序上的事情。”

“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.”

请见链接:鄞义林诽谤诉讼关于宪法住论要点

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

“我们强调诽谤法令(Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the Defamation Act”))从一开始就没有令人满意有关言论自由的要求,那就是‘国会可能通过法律….强制执行….限制’这是因为诽谤法令并没有任何言论自由的意图,正如原告有力的指出,它是为提供部分的修正和限定性条件作为限制言论——普通法的诽谤——假设性的已经存在。”

“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.”

“原告是对的,并不是在争论有关造成诽谤的行为是实际上受限制于诽谤法令。它并没有依据事实:国会颁布了修正法令,或者延续现有的法律主体。所以国会颁布的现有法律主体。按照这个定义,假设这个显存的法律主体(因此不可能为它提供),国会不可以同时颁布显存的法律主体。”

“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 therefore not positively providing for it), Parliament cannot simultaneously enact that existing body of law.”

请见链接:鄞义林飞诽谤诉讼的宪法辩护回复的网址资料。

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

我(在法院)也在我的本子上素描了以下的人物。

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

9 comments

  1. Harris

    Hi Mr. Ngerng, I have read your articles but am having difficulties with the local english. Was wondering if you ever consider submitting your articles to a native english speaker for editing and proofreading ?

    • suesun

      experts shout…lelong lelong your properties….get out before you get sucked into the sewage pipe of financial meltdown…..or before you end up loosing your pants….sell away your homes…lol

      i see vultures getting ready for supper…lol

  2. Ladybug

    Wonder who is the liar here. Someone on national day said. .. rental income from your flats shall be one of several source of income , especially for needy people.

    Today Online reported. ..Tidal wave of property supply hits Singapore.

    So how much murderous blood shall be on the streets this time round…. may i ask that someone with a penchant for throwing the book at people?

    • suesun

      opps..posted under the wrong commentary above…lol

      experts shout…lelong lelong your properties….get out before you get sucked into the sewage pipe of financial meltdown…..or before you end up loosing your pants….sell away your homes…lol

      i see vultures getting ready for supper…lol

  3. to Ravi

    we hope you are being struck by lightning , In order to reward your malicious towards our child.
    we hope you You have late cancer soon , for the correspondence of your nefarious for others.
    we hope you got money but lost life as the exchange the price of your evil mind to Roy !

    we are here, not the first party to attack anyone
    but we follow up your step , If you launch an attack toward Roy.
    ok !

  4. jeffkoh85

    @ravi

    Shut the hole up you pappy bootlicker. Didnt lhl caused enough damage to singapore ready? Extortionate hdb prices, suppressed wages, fts coming to singapore and flaunt their wealth and laugh at our poor population, young people can’t have enough to get married and have kids. And lhl says singaporeans are getting richer and no need to define poverty line and minimum wages. Yes rich are getting richer cos they have the resource. But how about the lower tier income people? Wheres all the help they need? Most have families and children and advise was to rent part of their flat to ft and collect income. All already cramped up in the fked up shoe box hdb!!!!!!

  5. 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

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