[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Mr. Leong Sze Hian did not take the stand as a witness in the defamation case brought against him by the Prime Minister on Wednesday (October 7), with his lawyer saying there was no case to answer and Mr. Lee Hsien Loong saying that Mr. “turned tail” from the fight.
This means that there will be no further hearings for the remainder of the week and all parties will submit written submissions and return to court on November 30 to present oral arguments to determine liability.
Leong, a blogger and financial advisor, is being sued by Lee for defamation over a Facebook post Leong made in November 2018, sharing an article from the Malaysian website The Coverage.
The article, which originally appeared in the States Times Review, contained allegedly libelous material. He claimed that Lee had helped former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak launder money in connection with Malaysia’s corruption-mired state fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
NO CASE TO ANSWER: LIM TEAN
Leong’s lawyer, opposition politician Lim Tean, told the court that he did not think it was necessary for Leong to take the stand as there was no case to answer.
Mr. Lim said that the Prime Minister, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof for most of the issues raised in his opening statement, and most issues could be resolved through written submissions.
“We are very pleased to have enough plaintiff submissions to fulfill our alleged case,” Lim said. “The defendant’s evidence, therefore, cannot help.”
Leong Sze Hian arrives at the High Court on October 7, 2020 (Photo: Gaya Chandramohan)
He said he would say that Mr. Lee’s case is “so frivolous, humiliating and abusive that we are not asking for any evidence for the defense.”
In response, Lee’s attorney, lead attorney Davinder Singh, said the real reason Leong did not take the stand was because “he knows he cannot defend what he said in his affidavit and he fears the truth.”
HAS CHOSEN TO SILENCE HIMSELF: DAVINDER SINGH
Mr. Singh said that Mr. Leong “never had any intention” to take the stand for questioning and was instead giving “artificial” reasons not to do so.
READ: Leong Sze Hian is not the “most effective critic” of the government; Suing him is not picking on him, says Lee Hsien Loong
Addressing Judge Aedit Abdullah, Singh said: “From the beginning, he made the most serious accusations against the plaintiff. Not only those of offensive words, but of abuse of process, of having a collateral purpose, of suppressing freedom of expression and speech, of wanting to send a message to the population that the Government will not tolerate criticism, of meddling with it, and of executing a case of unfounded malice and injury.
He added that the evidence showed Mr. Leong saying from the beginning that he was “going to confront the Prime Minister.” Singh pointed to Leong’s Facebook posts, where he claimed the lawsuit was “bigger than the only ordinary Singaporean I am”, but is for “every Singaporean today who has shared a Facebook post” and the “unborn generations to come “.
Singh cited a public Facebook post by Leong on December 26, 2018, which said “together we can show the prime minister and his advisers that they cannot use defamation suits to silence ordinary Singaporeans.”
The lawyer said the irony is that Leong has “chosen to silence himself by not taking the stand.”
“He had repeatedly maintained that he would stand up and fight, not just for himself, but for his supporters and Singaporeans,” Singh said. “In fact, he was associated with a campaign to raise money for him to fight. So what do we have? We have a situation where the plaintiff has appeared in court and taken the stand, unafraid of any questions and ready to go. defend his position, and yet the person claiming that (Mr. Lee) has abused the court process has turned around and fled. “
Leong Sze Hian, Lim Tean and several supporters outside the High Court on October 7, 2020 (Photo: Lydia Lam)
He said this is “deeply disappointing” and claimed that Leong has not only let himself down, but has let down his supporters and Singaporeans, doing “just the opposite” by avoiding the fight after claiming that he would stand up.
Mr. Leong was expressionless when the veteran attorney presented these arguments. The Prime Minister was not present in court at the time.
In response, Mr. Lim said that he could not help but think that what Mr. Singh said “was in the nature of a political speech designed for publication in the mainstream media tomorrow to humiliate my client.”
LEE: Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian defamation trial: Lim Tean asks Prime Minister Lee why he decided to sue Leong alone
“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 said.
“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.
“And therefore, it does not take into account whether the defense has the courage to go to the witness stand – which it has in abundance – but we are not going to help this plaintiff, who has come to this place to contaminate the source of Justice”. . “
OFFENDER POSITION REACHED FROM 200 TO 400 PEOPLE: EXPERT WITNESS
This occurred after a witness took Mr. Lee’s stand via a Zoom video call on Wednesday morning and was questioned by Mr. Lim for a few hours.
The witness, Hong Kong University Associate Professor of Information Innovation and Management Phan Tuan Quang, gave his expert opinion that the offending post reached between 200 and 400 Facebook users.
Mr. Lim told Dr. Phan that he could not be an independent witness due to his “bias” towards the Prime Minister, as he had received various grants in the past from the Government of Singapore.
Dr. Phan disagreed.
Lim also rejected Dr. Phan’s research and the expert opinions on which he relied in Mr. Lee’s case, stating that his analysis was “really conjecture”, based on speculation, as there was no actual evidence. how many people had read the post. The post was withdrawn by Mr. Leong shortly after the authorities told him to do so.
Mr. Lim told Dr. Phan that his efforts in his report were “so lacking in adequate material that it is useless.” Dr. Phan disagreed with all of these statements.
At the close of the hearing, Judge Aedit ordered both parties to submit written submissions by November 6, with a limit of 200 pages.
Specifically, it asked the parties to present arguments as to whether the reissue in this case is of the “actionable” type in terms of libel.
They must also answer to what extent defamation is understood in the traditional context, given the current presence of POFMA legislation (Protection against Online Manipulation and Falsehood Act), and what is the appropriate balance between defamation and Article 14 of the Constitution, which refers to freedom of speech and expression.
Responses must be submitted before November 20, and the parties will return for oral presentations on November 30.
If the judge finds Mr. Leong liable for defamation, the case will move to another stage to assess damages.
