atans1

How PM & Roy can resolve matters satisfactorily/ Roy’s defence: Work-in-progress

In Humour on 11/07/2014 at 5:24 am

(Update at 6pm: My legal Morocco Mole got it almost right: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/07/lee-applies-for-summary-judgement-against-ngerng/. By going for summary judgment, PM is saying Roy’s defence in BS. MM told me that PM’s lawyer was going to strike out defence. Going for summary judgment is more aggressive.)

Here’s a constructive suggestion to PM that will make him appear magnanimous and yet deter future libelers  and slanderes.

Below is my suggestion on what PM should ask Roy to do in return for accepting Roy’s published apology

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

and waiving damages.

PM should make Roy listen to Tharman’s CPF speech in parly on Tueday 10,000 times, continuously (with breaks for toilet and meals) in an unairconditioned room . At the end of the session, he must be able recite the speech word for word without any mistakes. If he can’t, he has to listen to the speech until he can recite it word for word.

And then he must write out the speech in longhand 100,000 times. That should be sufficient deterrent to others who want to defame PM. They might have to undergo similar treatment.

But then Maruah would object that this would amount to torture or cruel, unusual punishment. but then Maruah is the kind of organisation to object if the govt placed a middle-class activist in a cell with aircon, tv and internet access: guy must have personal toilet with a bidet.

But let’s be serious: what does a macho, man-biting talented footballer have to do with a gentle, unemployed gay S’porean star blogger with itchy fingers.

Both are celebrities. Both are braggadocios, despite their undoubted abilities (one with his footie wizardry, the other with word spinning). Both are full of self-confidence. And they enjoy changing their stories to fit their ends.

Suraez

“The truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me,” said Suarez in a statement.

Suarez has previously said he lost his balance and did not bite Chiellini.

The media reports that he changed his story after being told that Barcelona would not to buy a unrepentant Suarez.

Roy

After PM sued him for defamation, he was pretty quick to say on 23 May

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

Now (OK 17th June) he wrote:

“You know, when I wrote the article, it was never my intention to say that the prime minister had misappropriated the money. And I have never said this.” What about the apology Roy?

And his defence is now that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression*.

Err so why did he apologise in the first place? He now says he had no intention to libel and didn’t and anyway PM can’t sue him.

(Furthermore, his lawyer Ravi also denied allegations of malice on Ngerng’s part and also denied that the prime minister is entitled to aggravated damages.)

And given that the apology was not accepted, an apology that he could have continued using in his defence, and he has changed his defence, why hasn’t he come out to say the following is “inoperative” or “tak pakah”?

As it is

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

still stands and it is why PM’s press secretary is legally correct to say

I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th). You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng. This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation …

, despite a “Marxist Conspirator” saying AG should take action against her. Although a lawyer, she is talking rot.

Saying that the apology is no longer applicable, given that PM has refused to accept it  will  make sense of Ravi’s comments that the case is sub judice. As it stands, M** Ravi’s comment does not make sense because, it seems that so long as Roy doesn’t withdraw his posting of 23 May, the legal position is that he has admitted that he has defamed PM and that the only issue before the courts is that of damages.

My Morocco Mole in legal circles says that the PM’s lawyer will be making an application to strike out Roy’s defence that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression.

One gr0und is that Roy has apologised.

On the issue of whether the suit prevents S’poreans from discussing the CPF issue, a claim Maruah makes, Roy’s sifu, Uncle Leong, has written extensively on the issue, making most of the points that Roy claims he has discovered and exposed. Actually Uncle Leong has been telling us about these “discovered” dfacts fir yrs.

Yet Uncle Leong has not been sued or lauded like Roy because he has avoided making allegations of theft. His articles are factual.

Why is Uncle Leong is sifu? Roy came into prominence in 2012 (I think) when he co-authored with Uncle Leong a series of articles on the CPF system. Before that series, Roy was a no-body.

Related posts:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/who-is-right-pm-heart-truths-consumer-survey/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/constructive-suggestions-for-anti-pap-paper-warriors/

*”Derbyshire principle” that his myopic (or inability to count?) gf and sidekick chickened out of trying?

 When TRE relaunched, PM’s brother sued and Ravi wanted to defend TRE on the basis of Article 14. Richard Wan (elite school boy and scholar) found another lawyer to kai seow. TRE lived to fight another day.

**No jokes pls like that the “P” in “P Ravi” stands for “Politican”. It stands for Philemon.

Advertisements

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: