[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Leong Sze Hian may not have known that the allegations he shared were false, but he made no attempt to determine the truth in any way, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, taking the stand as a witness in the second half of Tuesday’s libel hearing.
In response to Mr. Leong’s attorney, Mr. Lim Tean, who had asked why Prime Minister Lee accused his client of malice when he did not know the truth, Mr. Lee told the High Court: “Because I don’t know he took the trouble to find out. This is reckless oversight of the truth. “
Prime Minister Lee is suing Mr. Leong over a post the blogger shared on his Facebook page on November 7, 2018, which contained a link to an article from the Malaysian news site The Coverage.
The article contained allegations that former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak had signed “secret deals” with Prime Minister Lee in exchange for help from Singapore banks to launder money from the Malaysian state fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB, ravaged by scandal.
The content of the article was taken from the States Times Review (STR) site, owned by Singaporean Alex Tan Zhi Xiang. who lives in Australia.
Subsequently, the Singapore High Commissioner in Malaysia, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Infocomm and Media Development Authority (IMDA) issued statements on the case, as did the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, K. Shanmugam .
In court on Tuesday, Lim went on to stress how Shanmugam had said, when the Protection Against Falsehood and Online Tampering Act (Pofma) was introduced, that those who spread false news without knowing the truth have nothing to fear.
Since Pofma does not penalize people who spread falsehoods, it cannot be fair that libel suits can be brought against people who do the same, he said.
Judge Aedit Abdullah responded that these are legal arguments that should have been presented to him, and not to the witness.
[[nid:504289]]Lim then asked why Lee didn’t sue other politicians for sharing the article, adding that he had “messed with it” not to protect his reputation, but to scare others. He suggested that Mr. Lee did so because Mr. Leong is a staunch critic of the Government.
PM Lee said that he had not sued Mr. Leong to scare others. He acknowledged that Leong was a critic of his government, although “far from being the most expressive, sharp or effective.”
Mr. Lim replied: “You admitted that you have been a thorn in the government’s side. That is why you chose to sue it.”
PM Lee replied, “I explained to him that after having carried the cross for so many years, there was no reason to sue him based on his criticism. We have learned to live with all these ant stings.”
Lim Tean asks why other critics haven’t been sued
Lim later pointed out that other critics, such as former presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian and People’s Power Party general secretary Goh Meng Seng, have not been sued.
“You had not sued other opposition politicians, but you chose to mess with the defendant because he is a staunch critic of the government. And you were trying to strike fear in Singaporeans,” Lim said.
PM Lee replied, “Your Honor, this is flattering to your client. I totally deny it.”
Mr. Lim then accused Mr. Lee of taking the “easy route” by suing someone who shared the post, rather than the author and creator. “Weren’t you brave enough to sue The Coverage?” I ask.
Prime Minister Lee replied: “I took some advice and decided to sue Leong Sze Hian. It is not a question of courage, but how best to claim my reputation.”
Mr. Lim said, “So you decided that the best way was to sue one of the thousands who shared and not the writer.”
“Yes,” replied PM Lee. “Because when the matter goes to court, the issues will come together and the truth will come out.” He added that he believed that suing Mr. Leong was the best course of action after receiving legal advice.
Mr. Lim argued that Mr. Leong’s publication of The Coverage article was “technical and limited” because he had simply shared it.
PM Lee responded that sharing is posting: “What else do you need to do before being considered a post?”
Mr. Lim asked: “Can you tell the court of a single living person who thought the worst of you because the defendant shared this article?”
“This is not the way we approach this issue,” Prime Minister Lee replied. “A harmful article is published, circulated. Either I vindicate myself or one more drop of poison sinks me.”
Every time he doesn’t clear his name, a little more damage is done and people will start to wonder if there is any truth to the allegations, the prime minister added.
It’s a “weird morality,” Lim said, which would lead Mr. Lee to believe that suing Mr. Leong was the best approach, rather than suing Mr. Alex Tan and STR.
“Are you saying it’s wrong for him to do it?” Judge Aedit asked.
“It’s wrong for him to do it,” Mr. Lim replied, asking Prime Minister Lee if it was okay for him not to go after the perpetrators of the falsehoods.
“Mr. Lim, this is not a court of morality,” Judge Aedit said, ordering him to rephrase his question.
The attorney then asked whether Mr. Lee would not have obtained better remedies if he had sued Mr. Tan and STR, to which Mr. Lee replied, “That is for me and my legal counsel to decide.”
Hearing continues on Wednesday
On the second day of the trial, Wednesday (October 7), you will see Dr. Tuan Quang Phan, the expert witness called by PM Lee, testifying via video link from Hong Kong.
Lim has not yet decided whether his client, Mr. Leong, will take the stand.
At the end of the hearing, Singh said: “I hope the defendant has the courage to take the stand tomorrow.”
Mr. Lim responded, “My client certainly has no less courage than the plaintiff not to sue STR or The Coverage.”
He then told reporters that his cross-examination of Mr. Lee was “super good” and that he had gotten what he wanted.
This article was first published in The times of the strait.
