[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen (TOC) website went on trial on Monday (October 26) along with a man accused of writing a defamatory article for the platform, alleging corruption in Singapore’s cabinet.
The trial was successfully launched after previous unsuccessful attempts by attorney M Ravi to refer the case to the High Court.
TOC founder Xu Yuanchen, 38, better known as Terry, is contesting a charge of defaming cabinet members by publishing the defamatory article on September 4, 2018.
The article was submitted to TOC under the name Willy Sum, but Xu’s co-defendant, Daniel De Costa Augustin, 37, is said to be the actual author of the article, alleging “corruption at the highest levels.”
De Costa, who is represented by Mr. Ravi, received one count of criminal defamation and a second count of unauthorized access to Mr. Willy’s email account to send the article to TOC.
According to an agreed statement of facts resolved by both the prosecution and the defendant, De Costa sent an email titled “PAP MP apologizes to SDP” to [email protected] from an internet cafe in Chinatown on September 4, 2018.
It was intended that the content of the email be published on the TOC website.
On the same day, Xu approved the release of the email sent to TOC by a person named Willy Sum, titled “The conclusion of Seah Kian Ping’s Facebook post.” Mr. Seah’s name was misspelled.
The allegedly defamatory article said that “we have seen multiple foreign and political errors, manipulation of the Constitution, corruption at the highest levels and apparent disrespect from foreign powers since the disappearance of founding father Lee Kuan Yew.”
After the article was published, the Information and Media Development Authority released a police report and the then-Chief Parliamentary Secretary of the Interior Ministry, Amrin Amin, said the allegations were “serious” and could not be taken lightly.
THE OWNER OF THE EMAIL ACCOUNT TESTIFIES
The first witness to take the prosecution stand Monday was Sim Wee Lee, also known as Willy, whose account De Costa had allegedly used to post the defamatory material.
Mr. Sim told the court that he met De Costa while walking his dogs in 2005 or 2006. They became friends and allowed De Costa to use his Yahoo! email account to help him send emails to resolve his issues. bankruptcy and housing.
He was not good with computers, Sim testified through a Mandarin interpreter, and trusted De Costa as a friend. Later, he also gave De Costa access to his Gmail and Facebook account, and De Costa was the only other person who had his passwords.
His Yahoo account password was changed in January 2017, and Sim said he couldn’t have changed it because he was in prison at the time, assuming De Costa had done so without permission.
He said he had been very grateful to De Costa for helping him send emails to authorities, but later learned that De Costa had sent several emails without his permission. He said he was feeling “very sad” and asked De Costa about this several times.
“The answer he gave me was: since he was using my email accounts to send emails, he will use my email account to express his thoughts,” said Sim. “I told him that if he wanted to send personal emails, he shouldn’t use my personal email account to send emails to those departments.”
De Costa told him that “what he had written was the truth,” Sim said. He later told Mr. Sim that he would no longer use the email account to send those emails.
Most of the emails were critical of government officials, Sim said, adding that it made him very angry.
VERY ANGRY ABOUT UNAUTHORIZED EMAILS, BUT NEEDS HELP FROM DE COSTA
However, he said he did not change their passwords or take any action to prevent De Costa from repeating what he did because they were friends and he needed his help.
Later, he also gave his Facebook details to De Costa, who said he did not have a Facebook account and wanted to “come in and see.”
“I asked him, you don’t have Facebook, he said no, he didn’t have one. As that was the case, and he was also helping me with bankruptcy and HDB matters, as a friend, since he wanted to take a look, I lent it to him “said Mr. Sim.
De Costa allegedly used Sim’s Facebook account to impersonate Mr. Sim and message other people, saying De Costa was “upright” and “will support what is right.”
Sim said that a friend had called him to tell him that Sim was commenting on racial issues and Sim told De Costa not to use his account to post such things. De Costa allegedly agreed.
In late 2018, the police knocked on Sim’s door, to his surprise, saying they were looking for him on libelous grounds. While searching his home, they found some drugs and he was sentenced to eight months in jail for drug possession in February 2019.
READ: Police investigate The Online Citizen for ‘serious allegations’ made in article
Sim said he was “very surprised” to see the police. “I asked the police what crime I had committed. The police told me that (they) were coming for a defamatory matter. At that moment, I was thinking, why are these things happening to me. The police asked me, if not defame, Why did my name appear in the emails? “
He replied that he did not personally take care of his email and said that only De Costa had access to his accounts.
“I completed my sentence at the end of July of last year,” Sim said. “After serving my sentence, I still had to go to the police and AGC for interviews. In that period of time, I was on the brink of crisis. I just hope this matter ends soon. As for Daniel’s action, I don’t know if he intentionally or unintentionally hurt me, but I choose to forgive him.
The trial was led by Assistant Prosecutors Mohamed Faizal, Senthilkumaran Sabapathy and Sheryl Yeo, and resumes Tuesday, with the defense ready to question Sim.
Xu is represented by Remy Choo and Priscilla Chia, while De Costa is defended by attorney M Ravi, who tried unsuccessfully Monday morning to have the trial heard separately rather than a joint trial.
If convicted of criminal defamation, Xu and De Costa can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both. De Costa can be fined up to S $ 5,000 and jailed for up to two years if convicted of his computer crime.
