[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The defamation lawsuit brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against financial advisor and blogger Leong Sze Hian has been postponed until November 30, when the court will hear further oral submissions.
Judge Aedit Abdullah ended what was scheduled to be a four-day hearing at the close of the second day on Wednesday (October 7), after Leong’s attorney, Lim Tean, told the court that he had informed his client who did not need to provide evidence.
Lim pointed out that there were nine cases before the court and said the burden of proof for eight of the cases rests with Prime Minister Lee, who is suing Mr Leong for sharing an article from the Malaysian news site The Coverage.
The article had falsely linked Prime Minister Lee to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) corruption scandal in Malaysia.
These issues included whether the offensive words in the post that Mr. Leong had shared on his Facebook page are to be understood as suggesting that Prime Minister Lee was an accessory to the criminal activity in the 1MDB scandal and aided the former Prime Minister. Malay Najib Razak to wash. money.
Said Mr. Lim: “Determining the meaning of an allegedly libelous publication is not a matter on which any evidence can be adduced, which means it is a matter of presentation.”
He added that Prime Minister Lee also had to prove, among other things, whether Mr. Leong’s Facebook post constituted a substantial post and the republication of these words in Singapore, whether Mr. Leong was malicious and aggravated the defamation through of his subsequent actions, and whether the Prime Minister is entitled to the damages he claims.
These are also not matters where Mr. Leong’s evidence is material and can be addressed in submissions, Lim said.
They also depend on whether liability is established and whether damages are awarded, he added.
The only issue where the burden of proof falls on Leong is whether PM Lee’s decision to sue him is an abuse of the judicial process, Lim said.
This will also be addressed in their presentations, he added.
“Your Honor, it is for these reasons and for all of our presentations that the (PM Lee) case is so frivolous and vexatious that we are not requesting any evidence for the defense,” he said.
PM Lee’s attorney, lead attorney Davinder Singh, said that Mr. Lim’s reasons were not credible, as nothing he had said was new.
“He and his client have always known that, but for the issue of abuse of process, the burden of proof in the cases falls on the plaintiff. Also, he and the defendant have always known what our case was in each case and of fact on every point that the defendant looked for in his affidavit to address these points. “
Mr. Singh noted that Mr. Leong’s affidavit stated that he would appear for cross-examination.
He added: “It is therefore my opinion that the defendant has never intended to take the stand for questioning and what is being said today as the reasons why he did not, are, with the greatest respect, fabricated. . “
Singh also cited a Facebook post that Leong made on December 24, 2018, announcing his counterclaim against Prime Minister Lee that the Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed in September last year.
“While it may be my name on the case file, this action is bigger than my name, bigger than the only ordinary Singaporean I am. It is for every Singaporean today that has ever shared a post on Facebook, for every child who will share a post on Facebook and for generations to come, “Singh said, citing Leong.
“I am very saddened and disappointed by the actions of our Prime Minister, but equally honored and encouraged that the character of our Singaporean people will prevail, and together we can show the Prime Minister and his advisers that they cannot use libel suits to silence ordinary Singaporeans. “
It is ironic that Mr. Leong chose to remain silent by not taking the stand as a witness, Singh said.
“We have a situation where the plaintiff has appeared in court and taken the stand, unafraid of any questions and ready to defend his position. And yet the person claiming to have abused the judicial process has given half turned and fled, “he added.
“This is deeply disappointing, Your Honor. (Mr Leong) has not only let himself down, he has let down his supporters and he has let down Singaporeans because, after claiming that he would stand up, he did the opposite and avoided the fight.” . “
Mr. Lim replied, “Your Honor, I cannot help but think that what my learned friend just said is in the nature of a political speech designed for publication in the mainstream media tomorrow to humiliate my client.
“Your Honor, I am a politician but in this court I have fulfilled my professional duty as a lawyer and only as a lawyer,” he added.
“When I made the call with the defendant’s consent not to ask for evidence for the defense, it was only because we concluded that the plaintiff’s case is so frivolous and vexatious that it is ridiculous and should be laughed at out of court.
“Therefore, it is not taken into account whether the defendant has the courage to take the stand, which he has in abundance, but we are not going to help this plaintiff who has entered the scene to contaminate the source of justice.”
[ad_2]
