[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The editor-in-chief of the socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC) said it would have complied with a demand letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s office to withdraw an allegedly defamatory article had the letter not been published in the media. .
On the other hand, PM Lee’s lawyer charged that, through his actions after receiving the letter from the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr. Terry Xu was “being opportunistic” by attacking PM Lee further.
Mr. Xu, who rejected the claim, testified on Wednesday (December 2) on the third day of a defamation trial in the High Court.
READ: Singapore in ‘very sad state’ if I depend on living in the Oxley Road house to ‘exude magical aura’: PM Lee on defamation trial
The prime minister is suing him over a TOC article published in August last year, which his lawyers say contains repeated false accusations by PM Lee’s brothers that seriously injure PM Lee’s character and reputation. The lawsuit also accuses Xu of malice.
The article was titled “Ho Ching, PM Lee’s Wife Shares an Article on Severing Ties with Family Members,” referring to an article he had posted on Facebook titled “That’s why sometimes it’s well cut ties with toxic relatives. ” .
Since 2017, Prime Minister Lee has been embroiled in a dispute with his brothers, Dr. Lee Wei Ling and Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, over the fate of their family home at 38 Oxley Road following the death of their father. and the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan. Yew.
The lawsuit refers to five specific paragraphs of the article based on accusations made by Dr. Lee. They claimed that PM Lee misrepresented to his father that the house had been listed as a heritage building and that it was useless to demolish it.
READ: TOC defamation lawsuit – Siblings’ animosity is evident, but PM Lee hopes’ things can be fixed ‘one day
“I WET HIS PEN IN POISON”
On Wednesday, PM Lee’s personal attorney, lead attorney Davinder Singh, continued to question Mr. Xu.
The lawyer again accused him of using Madam Ho’s article as a “peg” to “turn it into an attack” on the prime minister, despite the fact that PM Lee was not the one who published it.
You see, he had dipped his pen in poison and he did it deliberately. It was not, as you claim, a mere report of the allegations, ”added lead attorney Singh.
Mr. Xu disagreed.
The lawyer then asked him why he thought the fact that Mdm Ho shared the article on “cutting ties” was ironic. Xu told the court that it was because he felt that Mdm Ho, rather than PM Lee, was the toxic member of the family.
However, he admitted that the article did not suggest who the toxic relative was.
Lead attorney Singh pressed him on whether he had time to contact PM Lee and his brothers to ask for evidence and their positions on the allegations before “this sensational article” was published.
Mr. Xu replied that the brothers had provided evidence on Facebook and “made their position very clear.”
“Even if I wait another 10 years, (PM Lee) would not answer my questions,” he added.
The attorney then suggested that Mr. Xu asked the writer of the TOC article, Ms. Rubaashini Shunmuganathan, to use her imagination to make non-existent connections. Mr. Xu had told him that he needed “some creative writing” and had given him a list of suggestions to incorporate into the article.
“You were determined to publish this regardless of the facts,” said lead attorney Singh.
“I disagree,” Mr. Xu replied.
I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE ITEM IF IT WAS SHIPPED IN A “CONVENTIONAL” WAY
Lead attorney Singh then addressed the demand letter that Prime Minister Lee’s press secretary Ms. Chang Li Lin had sent to Mr. Xu on September 1 of last year.
Ms. Chang had demanded that the article and the corresponding post be removed from Facebook, so Xu would apologize and agree not to post similar allegations.
Ms. Chang added in the letter that if Mr. Xu did not “seize the opportunity presented to him … Prime Minister Lee will have no choice but to turn the matter over to his attorneys to sue him to enforce all his rights in law ”.
READ: Court documents claim PM Lee ‘suffered loss and damage’ following publication of The Online Citizen article
The TOC editor initially removed the article before republishing it three days later. He also said that he would not comply with the demands.
In court, he explained that he did not have the opportunity to respond to the demand letter before it was sent to other media.
“When I received the letter from the Prime Minister’s Office by email on September 1 at 6pm, I woke up. What I saw were inquiries from the media asking me what my answer was, “he added.
If PM Lee’s lawyers had sent the letter in the “conventional” manner, without sending it to the media, asking for the article to be withdrawn “without recourse or threat of lawsuit,” Xu said he would have done so, as he has in other cases.
He would also have apologized on the TOC site if necessary.
He then testified that Prime Minister Lee who sent the letter to other media outlets meant to him that he wanted to “escalate the matter.”
“A person of power who uses his public office to issue a letter, raises some doubts as to the angle (from which) he is approaching the matter.
“If I were to take the apology and say that what I posted was defamatory, the action may not proceed legally, but it can continue in terms of other statutory boards or ministries … come to us and say that we have posted questionable content,” he added Xu. .
READ: Prime Minister Lee Will Testify In Court If Defamation Suit Against TOC Editor Terry Xu Goes To Trial
Lead counsel Singh said his testimony was “ridiculous”, accusing him of changing his evidence.
“The fact of the matter, evident from his own behavior, is that far from feeling intimidated, he seized what he saw as the opportunity to go after him and improve his position,” added the lawyer.
Mr. Xu disagreed.
MORE PUBLICATIONS ON DEMAND
The lawyer took to court through Xu’s posts about the lawsuit after September 4 last year.
He posted on his personal Facebook page the next day about the service of the summons, with the caption: “It has begun (smiley face).”
On September 6, an article about the court order was also published in TOC. One section dealt with recent and ongoing defamation lawsuits filed by PM Lee, including one against blogger Leong Sze Hian.
On September 10, Mr. Xu posted on Facebook that he would fight the lawsuit to “defend myself against such unwarranted bullying, especially when it is from a public official.”
Senior counsel Singh accused Mr. Xu of seizing the opportunity to attack Prime Minister Lee again “under the pretext of reporting” on the current lawsuit. The editor disagreed.
“In fact, you made such a serious attack saying that a public servant had intimidated you. Doesn’t that show how much poison you have for the plaintiff and how much you want to damage him? asked the lawyer.
“If I agreed, it would be the amount of poison I have for the plaintiff’s action,” Mr. Xu replied.
When the lawyer accused him in addition to wanting to “move and generate hatred and contempt” for the prime minister, Xu said he simply wanted readers to know about the lawsuit.
The trial continues.
To see more stories like this, visit todayonline.com
