I did not know legal meaning of ‘criminal misappropriation’: Roy Ngerng

SINGAPORE — Blogger Roy Ngerng today (July 2) claimed that he was unaware of the gravity of the phrase “criminal misappropriation” which was used in a article on his blog that was found to have defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

He added that he had to look up the dictionary on its meaning after he was served the letter of demand by Mr Lee’s lawyers.

Mr Ngerng, who was representing himself in court, was cross-examined by lawyer Davinder Singh during the second day of the hearing to assess damages that Mr Ngerng had to pay Mr Lee.

“I am not legally trained … I do not know what criminal misappropriation in legal terms (meant),” said Mr Ngerng.

However, Mr Singh pointed out that Mr Ngerng had read news stories about the City Harvest Church case — which the blogger had cited in the article in question — involving alleged misuse of church funds and would have been aware of the seriousness of criminal misappropriation.

Said the lawyer: "You knew that the chart illustrated how the government had misappropriated the CPF monies, you knew that you had made a comparison to City Harvest Church in circumstances where it has been reported that four City Harvest accused charged with misappropriation and your knew that misappropriation was a crime.  And you have the audacity in your affidavit and in court yesterday and today to tell the court that you have no intention to defame?"

Lawyer Davinder Singh arriving at the Supreme Court on July 2, 2015. Photo: Wee Teck Hian

Justice Lee Seiu Kin had ruled in his summary judgment that Mr Ngerng had defamed Mr Lee in a blog post last May alleging misappropriation of money paid by Singaporeans into the Central Provident Fund. Some words and images in the May 15, 2014 post titled Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial, suggest Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of CPF money, the judge ruled.

When asked if he had thought the Prime Minister had committed a crime in relation to CPF monies, Mr Ngerng told Mr Singh that he had never thought of that as he had not met Mr Lee before. “It is not right for me to make an accusation or assumption … (I) saw him as a compassionate person … I do not think PM had misappropriated the fund, I do not know him in person,” said Mr Ngerng.

During the hearing this morning, Mr Singh pointed out that in Mr Ngerng’s previous jobs, he was involved in crafting messages and he understood the importance of being “precise and careful in how one uses the language”.

He also argued that Mr Ngerng was “so consumed by (his) desire to be a champion of CPF issues” and wanted to enhance his own standing and therefore made untrue accusations against Mr Lee.

To which, Mr Ngerng replied that he did not “care about promoting myself”. “If the Government takes care of Singaporeans, I’d be more than happy to stop writing, and be happy to be a waiter or cleaner,” he said.