[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is seeking compensation of around S $ 150,000 for alleged defamation of blogger Leong Sze Hian.
Both parties presented their final arguments in person on Monday (November 30) in the defamation lawsuit brought by Lee against Leong after he shared an article from the Malaysian website The Coverage in a public Facebook post in November 2018.
The article, which was published without a caption attached, alleged that Lee had helped former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak launder money in connection with the scandal-affected Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad.
Lee’s lawyer, senior adviser Davinder Singh, gave the figure of S $ 150,000 and compared it to the case of Roy Ngerng, who was sued for a similar sum by the prime minister.
Addressing Judge Aedit Abdullah, Singh said that the accusation in Leong’s case is “much more serious” than the one in Ngerng, as 1MDB is a problem “of a global nature”.
“It is not only about the money from the CPF (Central Provident Fund) which in itself is also very critical and important, but it is about the billions of 1MDB, which are being investigated at that time in different countries and have been associated with serious criminal conduct, including abuse of power, money laundering and criminal breach of trust, ”said the attorney.
He said the allegations put Mr. Lee in a position “that is no different than how Mr. Najib is viewed.”
AN AMAZING ALLEGATION: DAVINDER SINGH
“It is difficult to think of any other accusation that can be made against the prime minister that is more serious,” Singh said.
“And when you make that kind of accusation, which is a staggering accusation to associate with 1MDB and its billions and abuse of power to lend corrupt money laundering aid, it is not believed that the damages can or should be any. less substantial things … People should know that there are consequences for such serious falsehoods. “
The S $ 150,000 figure also includes the aspects of alleged malice, aggravation and Leong’s “higher position” than Ngerng, which Singh said was in Leong’s own words as Leong had called himself a “critical prominent and known. “
Singh said the defendant had shared the article without verifying whether there was a basis for the allegations and pointed to his conduct before the trial and during the trial.
Mr. Leong had sponsored a post on The Online Citizen website about the process, given related interviews in Hong Kong and spoken at Speaker’s Corner in connection with the process, Mr. Lee previously testified.
“When a defendant, knowing that he has been sued for something that he knows he cannot prove to be true, changes it and uses all available avenues to remind people of what he knows to be untrue, it is twisting the knife,” he said. Singh.
“And when he twists the knife, it is an aggravation. In this case, it is not just about reminding people, then reformulating the issue as one of victimization. And what is victimization? It is the use of the judicial process to vindicate the own reputation. for libel that doesn’t even say it’s true. “
He said doing so is cynically using the judicial process to his own advantage, without sympathy for the plaintiff, Mr. Lee, “who is simply exercising his legal rights.”
Noting how the trial was conducted, with allegations made against Lee while he was on the stand and without Leong taking the stand, Singh said the defendant was in court “for an ulterior collateral purpose” to attack Lee.
READ: PM Lee v Leong Sze Hian Defamation Lawsuit: Blogger Refuses To Take Position, Lawyer Says No Case To Answer
LIM TEAN REQUESTS NO MORE THAN S $ 1 PER READER IN DAMAGES
In response, Mr. Leong’s lawyer, Lim Tean, reiterated to the defense that the entire process “has been totally unnecessary and is an abuse of the process.”
He asked for no more than S $ 1 in damages per person reading the offending post, if the judge finds that Mr. Leong is liable for defamation.
Taking Lee’s expert estimate of 200 to 400 readers who saw the post, this would be no more than S $ 400, Lim said, adding that “a dollar is not out of the question.”
He argued that the fact that the post was made on Facebook is “critical” and said it was “a naked post” that his client “did not endorse in any way.”
Instead, it was similar to casually telling a friend: look, there is this article, it may be an interesting article, you might want to see it, he said.
Leong Sze Hian in Superior Court on November 30, 2020 (Photo: CNA / Joehari As’ari)
Lim argued that hundreds of thousands of people in Singapore alone use Facebook, and most of them are ordinary people who don’t know what “defamatory” means.
“Very often, they come across something interesting and want to share it. Are we saying that each of them is potentially liable to a libel suit? I think your honor, that’s drastic,” he said.
LEE: Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian defamation trial: Lim Tean asks Prime Minister Lee why he decided to sue Leong alone
He added that defamation law enforcement “must change with the environment,” noting the introduction of laws to protect against falsehoods and online manipulation.
He also argued that Mr. Lee had abused the judicial process, pointing to his testimony in court of how Mr. Leong had been a thorn in the government’s side in a small way for a long time.
Mr. Lim claimed that the prime minister went to court “under the guise of a personal lawsuit (and) sued a critic of the government to silence him before the general election.”
He added that the burden falls on the plaintiff to prove the publication and republication of the defamatory material, which he has not done beyond the 22 reactions and 18 shares of the post.
He said that if the judge ruled to award damages, he would only ask for “nominal” and “derisory” damages.
“I wouldn’t go so far as to ask for the smallest coin in the kingdom, which is a nickel. But a dollar is not out of the question,” Lim said.
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD REMIND SOCIAL MEDIA USERS NOT TO HARM INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH A SINGLE CLICK: MR SINGH
In response, Singh said the sentence should remind people that they cannot hurt innocent people with “just one click” just because they are on social media.
“Your Honor’s judgment should, in my respectful submission, remind people … that the laws apply equally to them,” he said.
“People should know that just as you cannot damage and damage reputation in the physical world, the law does not allow you to do it just because it is easier, where, as I said, with one click you can reach thousands, tens of thousands, using an architecture that is built for the purpose of helping you get as much coverage as possible, like Facebook.
“My scholarly friend has suggested that the plaintiff, who has gone to court after being called corrupt, has used the full weight of the government machinery to attack the defendant,” Singh said, adding that this was not only irrelevant. but also aggravation.
“It shows how the defense has used this court process not only to attack the plaintiff, but to politicize the case, while also appearing to suggest that this is what the plaintiff has done.”
In response to the argument that Mr. Leong is a thorn in the government’s side, Mr. Singh read Mr. Lee’s full response and said that Mr. Lim had only chosen one line.
READ: Leong Sze Hian is not the “most effective critic” of the government; Suing him is not picking on him, says Lee Hsien Loong
Instead, what Lee said was “the complete opposite” of what Lim claimed.
“What he said is that while he has been a thorn in a small scale for a long time, that is completely irrelevant to who chose to sue, and for that he had to think carefully about the charge and take legal advice.” “said Mr. Singh.
He said there should be a limit to the use of the court “to make wild accusations.”
“We need to understand this. We are in Singapore, where there is an ingrained culture. A set of political leadership values that, or under command, Singaporeans expect their leaders to sue if the accusations are false. And if they don’t sue, they have to explain, “said the lawyer.
At this, Judge Abdullah said: “That might raise the question: should the courts continue to facilitate that?”
“It’s not so much about facilitating that by the courts,” Singh replied. “It’s the question of whether … the plaintiff sued, messed with this defendant … and second, why he had to do so despite the government’s statements (which discredit the accusations).”
He added that the reason was “this reality of an expectation where false accusations will be brought to court” and the plaintiff will be open to cross-examination.
“To run the case that … oh, you know, there are statements from the government and you said they are effective and therefore your case is an abuse, this is reasoning that does not stand up to scrutiny,” Singh said.
“It ignores the reality of the need for one’s reputation to be vindicated in a court of law where the forensic process and the third party, an impartial tribunal, will make a decision.”
Judge Abdullah said he would provide his ruling in writing “as quickly as possible”, adding that he knew that both groups of lawyers also had other procedures.
The hearing came after Lim defended The Online Citizen editor Terry Xu in the morning in a separate defamation lawsuit filed by the prime minister.
The alleged defamation is for an article posted on the socio-political website titled “PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching strangely shares an article on severing ties with family members.”
