According to the Straits Times news report “Press sec to PM Lee refutes allegations over her statement on blogger’s case” (Jan 13) – “In a five-page media statement, Ms Chang cited notes taken by lawyers from Drew & Napier, who represent Mr Lee, at the closed-door session where Mr Ngerng, 33, was ordered to pay $29,000 in costs for legal fees and related expenses. Damages for defamation will be assessed in later hearings.
Mr Ravi said in his letter that based on his recollection, he did not tell the court that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. Instead, what he said was that he had to take instructions from his client, which was a “common and normal practice”.
He also said it would be “illogical” for the court to ask him to confirm whether Mr Ngerng would give evidence by Jan 30 had he already said Mr Ngerng would not.
But Ms Chang, citing transcripts, said there had been a “hasty U-turn” by Mr Ravi.
She wrote: “Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages.
“Mr Davinder Singh (from Drew & Napier) then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng.
“Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence,” she said.
“This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined,” she added. “And even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 Jan 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.” – In her 5-page media statement – she said “Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.”
Since Mr Ngerng was not present – how can she issue a statement that Roy Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined?
Isn’t she putting words into his mouth when he was not even present?
Since she was also not there – how can she be sure that he was not present during that part of the hearing.
You mean the “shorthand” notes of the lawyers also includes a running commentary of when Roy Ngerng came and went?
Does she have any legal education, training or experience to understand the rules regarding cross-examination in court?
How could she have interpreted the “shorthand” notes of what transpired in court as “Roy Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined?
Isn’t this really ludicrous?
How can you issue a statement of fact against Roy Ngerng which is actually your own interpretation of the “shorthand notes”?
“She also addressed a question Mr Ravi had asked, whether it was appropriate for the Prime Minister’s press secretary to issue statements in connection with the case.
“He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that ‘the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF’.
“It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister’s press secretary,” she added.” – This is even more ludicrous.
Is Roy Ngerng being sued by Lee Hsien Loong in a private civil suit as a citizen or is he suing him as the PM?
You can’t have it both ways and have your cake and eat it too!
Going by her logic – every Minister who sues anybody in their personal capacity for anything can make use of state resources funded by taxpayers’ money?
Uniquely Singapore!
Win battles lose war
TRS Contributor