SINGAPORE - Mr Ravi on Friday filed amended defence papers in court to add that, based on Article 14 of the Constitution - which guarantees Singaporeans the freedom of speech and expression, among others - Mr Lee has no cause of action against Mr Ngerng.
Get the full story from The Straits Times.
Blogger files defence against PM Lee's suit
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, June 18, 2014
Blogger Roy Ngerng has responded to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit, saying in a defence filed in court yesterday that he never intended to accuse Mr Lee of misappropriating Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
He also argued that the key concerns raised in his May 15 blog post, which is at the centre of the suit, were the lack of transparency with which CPF funds are managed, and the question of interest on these savings, among other things.
Mr Ngerng, 33, is the first blogger here to be sued for defamation by a political leader over online comments.
In his May 15 blog post, Mr Ngerng compared a Channel NewsAsia chart detailing the relationship among City Harvest Church leaders, prosecuted for allegedly misusing about $50 million in church funds, to a chart he created. His chart set out the relationships among the CPF, Mr Lee, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Temasek Holdings, GIC and other Singapore companies.
In a statement of claim filed on May 29 commencing the defamation suit, Mr Lee's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said that comparison was understood to mean the Prime Minister was guilty of criminal misappropriation of CPF monies. Mr Lee claimed damages, an injunction to stop Mr Ngerng from further defaming him, and legal costs.
Yesterday, Mr Ngerng's lawyer M. Ravi argued in the blogger's defence that readers would have looked at the blog post as a whole, and that it would have been "clear" to them that Mr Ngerng's principal concerns included the issue of transparency when it comes to CPF funds, the interest paid on these savings and Singaporeans' pension at retirement. This was a point that Mr Ngerng also stressed in a Facebook post summing up his defence yesterday.
Mr Ravi also disputed the defamation suit on the grounds that at the time of the blog post, the City Harvest Church leaders had yet to be found guilty of corruption by the court.
He said that Mr Ngerng had, after receiving letters of demand from Mr Lee, also made plain privately and in public that the allegation that Mr Lee had misappropriated CPF funds was "false and without foundation".
Mr Ngerng's offer of $5,000 in damages to the Prime Minister, he wrote, was also "not derisory". It was based on Mr Ngerng's "modest living and income" from his job at the time of the offer, as a patient coordinator in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Mr Ngerng has since been fired from his job.