[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The Online Citizen (TOC) editor Terry Xu on Wednesday (December 2) was accused of having “deliberately dipped his pen in poison” to attack Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in an article on the 38 Oxley Road saga.
Prime Minister Lee’s lawyer Davinder Singh also asked Xu several times if he was trying to “move and generate hatred and contempt” towards Prime Minister Lee by posting Facebook posts and an article about the lawsuit after he received a subpoena in September. last year after his refusal to remove the offending article and apologizing.
Xu denied the points made during cross-examination on Wednesday (December 2), the third day of a week-long trial of a defamation lawsuit against him by Prime Minister Lee.
The prime minister is suing him over a TOC article published in August last year that referred to the comments of his sister, Dr. Lee Wei Ling, alleging that his brother had misled his late father Lee Kuan Yew Lee into believing him that his Oxley family’s house had been published. by the Government.
Mr. Singh, when questioning Mr. Xu, told him that he intended to attack PM Lee in the offending article itself, which was titled “PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching shares a strange article on severing ties with members of the family”. .
“You had dipped your pen in poison and you did it deliberately,” said the lead attorney. “It was not, as you claimed, a mere report of the allegations. Isn’t it true that what you did was use the Ho Ching article as a pointer to creatively create this bogus attack?”
Singh further said that, having previously been indicted in a separate lawsuit, for alleged cabinet defamation, Mr. Xu saw the article shared by Ms. Ho, titled “Here’s why it’s okay to sever ties with toxic family members sometimes.” , as an opportunity to attack the person who is the head of government.
Mr. Xu disagreed.
Singh then pointed out the following lines in the TOC article, written by Rubaashini Shunmuganathan: “The irony of Madam Ho sharing the article is what we find interesting and funny. This is because everyone knows that she has a bitter relationship with her husband’s family members, particularly her brother-in-law Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and her sister-in-law, Dr. Lee Wei Ling (LWL). “
He then asked Mr. Xu, “Do you understand the meaning of irony? In your opinion, if this was ironic, could you tell us what you thought irony was?”
Xu replied, “The relationship between Ms. Ho Ching and her in-laws is not that good. However, she shared this post to say that it is advisable to distance yourself from toxic relatives. The irony is that I feel that she is the toxic family member. . “
“Oh seriously?” Mr. Singh said.
Judge Audrey Lim asked: “Where is the irony, sorry? Actually, you don’t mention that Ms. Ho Ching is the one who is toxic. Why is she considered to be the toxic one when the rest of the paragraphs ( in the article) don’t you talk about her? “
Any reader with knowledge of the Lee family dispute would understand the irony of the matter, Xu replied.
Although the article was apparently about Ms. Ho Ching, Mr. Xu then “pointed (his) weapons at the plaintiff,” Singh reiterated, to which Mr. Xu disagreed.
“So your article was not intended to refer to the plaintiff as a toxic family member,” Judge Lim commented in an attempt to seek clarification. “The article was intended to refer to Ms. Ho Ching as the toxic member. Although it does not suggest who the toxic member of the family is.”
“Yes,” Mr. Xu said.
Follow-up posts on Facebook, article shows ‘poison’
Prime Minister Lee had initially issued a demand letter on September 1 last year, through his press secretary, asking TOC to remove the offending article and associated post from Facebook, as well as to apologize.
Xu responded on September 4 saying that he would not comply. He defended his article as a “fair comment” and that his focus “was on the big picture related to the allegations of abuse of power and the status of the relationship between the late Mr. Lee and his son.”
He also wrote that it was his “moral obligation to help dispel the climate of fear that permeates the speech in Singapore.”
PM Lee subsequently initiated legal proceedings, and his lawyers served Mr. Xu with a subpoena on September 5.
Mr. Singh asked why Mr. Xu, on the same day, posted a photo of the court order on Facebook and included a link to both PM Lee’s demand letter and his own default response.
“Why did you keep talking about the dispute between you and the Prime Minister regarding defamation?” Mr. Singh asked.
Mr. Xu responded that background information was needed to explain why he was being sued.
“Many journalists were trying to get my comment,” he added. “I made this post to say that I would not comment on this lawsuit to avoid escalation of the matter.”
“If all he intends to do is say ‘I have no comment, please don’t contact me,’ he didn’t need to hit the plaintiff. But he did,” Singh said. “This is another example of you being opportunistic and taking advantage of a seemingly designed occasion to attack the plaintiff.”
Xu disagreed and said he was doing his job reporting the news.
Mr. Singh then referred to an article, posted on the TOC website on September 6, titled “PM Lee Serves TOC Editor on Principal Subpoena, Following His Refusal to Comply with Demands to Remove the article and issue apologies. ” It was written by a writer using the pseudonym “Danisha Hakeem”, whom Mr. Xu confirmed was following his instructions.
The lead attorney asked why Mr. Xu would remind his readers of the allegations when he had already told them that there was a court order. “A news post does not repeat what has already been reported… So what was its real intention? Was it not once again to remind those who may have missed the September 5 article what the allegations were? ”
Mr. Xu disagreed.
Singh then asked what the purpose of including, at the end of the September 6 article, references to Prime Minister Lee’s ongoing defamation lawsuit against blogger Leong Sze Hian and his 2014 defamation lawsuit against another blogger, Roy. Ngerng.
“It is a reasonable record in terms of the plaintiff’s track record of suing individuals,” Xu replied.
Mr. Singh replied: “This was another attempt to make it clear that this lawsuit against you promotes the ‘climate of fear’, as is evident in the other lawsuits.”
He added, “Mr. Xu, under the pretext of reporting this lawsuit, take the opportunity to attack the plaintiff again.”
Mr. Xu disagreed.
Singh then referred to a Facebook post on September 10, written by Xu and shared by TOC, in which Xu said: “While I will be fighting a battle on the mountain, as I do not have nearly infinite resources like the el The highest paid politician in the world would have, I am willing to take that risk to defend myself against such unjustified intimidation, especially when it comes from a public official. “
Said Mr. Singh: “You lied earlier when you claimed that you did not want to make matters worse. You were so angry with the plaintiff that you used the media that you had to attack him. In fact, you made such a serious attack by saying that a public servant I had intimidated you.
“Doesn’t that show how much poison you had for the plaintiff and how much you wanted to damage him?”
He disagreed on several occasions with the lead attorney, but maintained his description of the bullying by a public official.
Singh further said: “You wanted to move and generate hatred and contempt for the plaintiff, put him on Facebook, which you know invites comments, actions and reactions.”
Mr. Xu replied, “You said you wanted to wake up and generate hatred and contempt, no. I wanted people to know, yes.”
[ad_2]
