Defamation trial: Blogger Leong Sze Hian declines to be cross-examined by PM Lee's lawyer

• Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, said by not testifying, Mr Leong had “turned tail and fled”
• Meanwhile, Mr Leong's lawyer Lim Tean said there was no need for his client to testify as the lawsuit was “so frivolous”
• Mr Lim also cross-examined an expert witness and said his estimates on the reach of Mr Leong's Facebook post was “guesswork”
• Mr Lee is suing Mr Leong for sharing a Facebook posts containing false information that he was involved in the 1MDB scandal

SINGAPORE — The defamation trial involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong ended on Wednesday (Oct 7) with the defendant, blogger Leong Sze Hian, choosing not to take the witness stand.

Mr Lee’s lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, called out Mr Leong, who was present in the courtroom, on his decision to not be cross-examined.

Referring to Mr Leong’s earlier public statements on how the Prime Minister cannot make use of defamation suits to silence Singaporeans, Mr Singh said in the High Court: “The irony is he has chosen to silence himself by not taking the stand”.

“Your Honour, he has repeatedly held out that he will stand up and fight not just for himself, but for supporters and Singaporeans… We have a situation where the plaintiff (Mr Lee) has turned up in court and gone into the stand, unafraid of any questions and ready to defend his position.”

Added Mr Singh, who has represented Mr Lee in other defamation suits: “And yet the person who alleges that he has abused the process of the court has turned tail and fled.”

In November 2018, the 66-year-old blogger shared on his Facebook an article from Malaysian publication The Coverage, which contained corruption allegations about Mr Lee and his involvement in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.

Mr Leong’s lawyer, Mr Lim Tean from Carson Law Chambers, said at the start of the afternoon session on Wednesday that after deliberating over lunch, a decision was made for Mr Leong not to take the stand.

He said that it was Mr Lee, 68, who bears the burden in proving his claims that Mr Leong defamed him.

Mr Lim, who is also an opposition politician, said that there were sufficient admissions from Mr Lee that surfaced during Tuesday’s cross-examination that would support their defence and Mr Leong’s testimony would not help the defence’s case any further.

On Tuesday, the first day of the trial, Mr Lim’s cross-examination of Mr Lee lasted five hours with the defence lawyer pressing Mr Lee on his reasons for choosing to only sue Mr Leong for sharing the article and not others. 

Mr Singh, however, argued that the defendant never had any intention of taking the stand to be cross-examined despite saying that he will do so in their opening statement.

When Justice Aedit Abdullah interrupted Mr Singh and questioned how his attacks were relevant to the case, Mr Singh said it involved the credibility of Mr Lim’s arguments.

“The real reason the defendant is not taking the stand is that he knows he is unable to defend what he said in his affidavits and he is afraid of the truth,” he added.

In response, Mr Lim said Mr Singh’s attacks seemed to be like a political speech, “designed for publication in the mainstream media tomorrow to humiliate my client”.

He reiterated that the decision for Mr Leong to not testify is solely because they came to the conclusion that Mr Lee’s suit is “so frivolous and vexatious as to be laughable” and “should be laughed out of court”.

EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIES ON ESTIMATED REACH OF LEONG'S POST 

In the morning session of the trial on Wednesday, Mr Lim cross-examined Mr Singh’s expert witness, Dr Phan Tuan Quang, and argued that his estimate on the extent of the reach of Mr Leong’s Facebook post was just “guesswork”.

An expert in social media from the University of Hong Kong, Dr Phan said in his affidavit that minimally 200 to 400 Facebook users in Singapore were likely to have accessed Mr Leong’s post and the article and that this was a “conservative estimate”.

Dr Phan took the stand while in Hong Kong and the cross-examination took place via a teleconferencing platform.

Mr Lim argued that Dr Phan had no direct evidence of how much Mr Leong’s post was shared on the social media platform as he relied only on screenshots that were publicly available.

“Your analysis is really guesswork, based on speculation drawn on knowledge of trends and predictive behaviour. In other words, it is not expert evidence at all,” said Mr Lim.

Dr Phan disagreed and said that while he does not have direct evidence, he came up with his estimates based on scientific evidence, his own research and research of academics globally. 

Mr Lim also questioned Dr Phan’s position as an independent witness as he was assisted by associates in Mr Singh’s chambers when writing his expert report and argued that he was biased as he received funding from the Singapore Government while he was working in the National University of Singapore (NUS).

Dr Phan denied Mr Lim’s assertions and said that any assistance he received in writing the report was to make it less technical and that there is “quite a bit” of academic freedom in NUS to conduct unbiased research.

Both parties have to file their written submissions by Nov 6 and present their oral submissions on Nov 30.