Blogger ‘an opportunist who tried to raise own profile’

SINGAPORE — While blogger Roy Ngerng today (July 2) tried to paint himself as a fearful ordinary citizen who panicked at the intimation of a defamation suit by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, lawyer Davinder Singh cast him as an opportunist who sought to raise his own profile in a “cynical, calculated manner”.

His claim that he was unaware of the gravity of the phrase “criminal misappropriation”, which he used in a May 2014 blog posting that has been ruled by a court to have defamed Mr Lee, was also challenged by Mr Singh.

Both parties’ contention over Mr Lee’s decision to seek aggravated damages also came up today, the second day of a hearing to assess how much Mr Ngerng has to pay the Prime Minister for suggesting he had misappropriated monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

“I suggest to you, Mr Ngerng, that the word ‘apology’ is completely meaningless to you ... every time you get caught, you apologise for convenience, but you carried on doing what you always intended to do ... and we have seen (that) from your conduct,” said Mr Singh, who is seeking an unspecified substantial quantum for his client.

A day after Mr Ngerng, who is representing himself, spent more than six hours cross-examining Mr Lee, the exchanges in court yesterday got testier when he faced questions on the witness stand from Mr Singh, a Senior Counsel. Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who was presiding over the hearing, had to intervene several times and at one point told Mr Ngerng to think before answering questions. Mr Singh also reminded Mr Ngerng more than once during the trial that his comments might be considered further aggravation.

While Mr Ngerng said he was in a state of shock and fear after receiving a letter of demand from Mr Lee’s lawyers relating to his article titled Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial, posted on May 15 last year, Mr Singh charged that it was always the blogger’s intention to capitalise on the incident to draw more eyeballs.

After the letter of demand was put up on the blog, alongside the offending article, the website’s visitorship grew, said the lawyer, arguing that Mr Ngerng used the opportunity to advertise his blog.

Although the blogger insisted that he “never intended to use my blog to gain attention”, Mr Singh countered: “Far from you not having any intention of damaging the (Prime Minister), this shows that you are out to hurt him and to use the opportunity of the letter of demand to further twist the knife.”

Mr Ngerng’s point that he did not know what “criminal misappropriation” meant in legal terms — he said he had to look up the phrase in the dictionary — was also refuted by the lawyer.

Mr Singh noted that Mr Ngerng had, in his article, drawn parallels to the trial of City Harvest Church leaders in suggesting impropriety with the management of CPF monies. In addition, the lawyer added that Mr Ngerng’s previous jobs involved crafting messages for the public, which meant he knew about “being precise and careful on how one uses the language”.

Mr Singh also dismissed Mr Ngerng’s reiteration that he was apologetic over the defamatory article and his justification for setting a subsequent YouTube video, in which he commented about the suit, to private mode instead of removing it.

The lawyer charged that Mr Ngerng was “dishonorable and insincere” when publishing his apology. “You never believed that the Prime Minister had a basis to sue you; you never were sincere about your apology but made it only so that you can get away with not paying damages,” said Mr Singh.

The hearing enters its final day tomorrow, where Justice Lee could rule on the quantum of damages.