[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Online Citizen (TOC) contributor Daniel De Costa acted in good faith when he made allegedly defamatory statements, argued his attorney, Mr. M. Ravi, in court on Friday (October 30).
Ravi of Carson Law Chambers said that his client had not been malicious and had simply repeated the allegations made earlier by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s brothers, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Dr. Lee Wei Ling, while believing that they were true.
Under the law, those who express opinions on the public conduct of public servants in good faith are not guilty of defamation, he argued on the fourth day of a criminal defamation trial that has been postponed until next month.
De Costa and TOC editor Terry Xu were charged with criminal defamation in 2018 for allegedly defaming members of the Singaporean cabinet in a letter posted on the TOC website.
“PAP’s current leadership is severely lacking in innovation, vision and the drive to take us to the next round,” said the letter, which was written by De Costa and published by Xu.
“We have seen multiple foreign and political mistakes, alteration of the Constitution, corruption at the highest levels and apparent disrespect from foreign powers since the disappearance of founding father Lee Kuan Yew.”
Ravi said his client simply intended to repeat what PM Lee’s brothers had alleged in a joint statement in 2017.
“In our public statement of June 14, 2017, we wrote that Lee Hsien Loong opposed the demolition wish of our father Lee Kuan Yew, that Lee Hsien Loong abused his power as prime minister, and that he hijacked state organs to persecute his personal goals, “Mr. Ravi quoted PM Lee’s brothers as they have said.
Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Dr. Lee were not sued by PM Lee, nor were they investigated for criminal defamation, Ravi noted.
Therefore, his client genuinely believed, he added, that Prime Minister Lee had “abused his power as prime minister” and “hijacked the organs of the state,” since De Costa believed that Prime Minister Lee’s brothers were credible.
Ravi made these arguments in the course of the request for the prosecution to reveal De Costa’s lengthy statement made to the Criminal Investigation Department during the police investigation in 2018.
He said he needed the long statement, as “it was not clear which case the prosecution is handling without these documents.”
Mr. Ravi had filed the same request earlier in the trial in January with District Judge Christopher Tan, who was then presiding over the case. Since then, Mr. Tan has been appointed Clerk of the State Courts and now District Judge Ng Peng Hong is in charge of the case.
On Friday, Xu’s attorney, Mr. Remy Choo of the Peter Low and Choo law firm, made a similar request for Xu’s recorded statement to be released.
Choo argued that the statement is relevant to the question of Xu’s intentions in publishing the letter and whether he deliberately published it knowing that it would damage the reputation of cabinet members.
He also said that, as far as Xu can recall, he was not asked questions specifically about the Cabinet.
A “key point” of the defense case is that cabinet members were not referenced in the claim that there was “corruption at the highest levels,” Choo said, adding that a normal and reasonable reader of the article would not. I would. we conclude that it refers to the members of the Cabinet.
District Judge Ng dismissed requests for the statements to be released, in line with former District Judge Tan’s earlier decision to do the same.
During Friday’s trial, Mr. Ravi and Mr. Choo also questioned the investigating officer on the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Jonathan Au Yong, who took the stand as a witness.
Both lawyers pointed out that DSP Au Yong had submitted the police report that started the investigation after the CID director received a letter about the offending TOC article from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA).
This is contrary to a police statement made on December 12, 2018, which said that IMDA had submitted the police report.
DSP Au Yong confirmed that IMDA did not file a formal police report, but said that it is not unconventional or inappropriate for a police officer to file a report himself as an administrative procedure to receive information related to a possible crime.
The parties will return to state courts for a pre-trial conference on November 19 before the resumption of trial.
[ad_2]
