Connect with us

Current Affairs

Why PM press secretary got it wrong

Published

on

By TR Emeritus

P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower proceedings.
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
MR: 1.
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?

I believe PSPM may have completely misinterpreted the above dialogue that took place before the judge.

Ravi indicated that he would not be filing “fresh” AEIC. Instead, he wanted the “previous” AEIC that was filed in Order 14 to stand as AEIC for the assessment of damages. Note at this point, there are 2 timelines – one for the completed O.14 (Summary judgment) and the other for the forthcoming Assessment of Damages.

At this point, Singh interjected saying he would be cross examining Roy if “standing” as AEIC. The term “standing” used by Singh is important because Singh must have been referring to the previous AEIC. In other words, Singh is saying if Roy does not file a fresh AEIC for Assessment of Damage but adopting the previous AEIC, thus the use of the word “standing”, meaning the old one stands, then Singh would cross examine Roy (based on the previous AEIC).

At this point, Ravi replied to the judge that his client would not be filing “fresh” AEIC. That is to say, the previous AEIC “stands” and Singh may proceed to cross examine Roy (just as Singh said he would “if standing as AEIC”).

PSPM fxxx up the whole episode by not paying attention to the word “standing” as by Singh. She misinterpreted Singh, when he said “standing”, as referring to a fresh AEIC.

The word “filing” refers to filing a fresh AEIC; the word “standing” refers to something that has been filed and allowed to continue, i.e. the previous AEIC.

Now you get it, PSPM ?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Queen’s Cow Sir!:

January 15, 2015 at 12:28 am  (Quote)

No,PSPM is not a mind reader. The irony is she, as spokeswoman for PM, misunderstood her own counsel.

Like I have explained before, Singh used the term “standing” to refer to the previous AEIC. So Singh said : “I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.”

Effectively Singh is saying if Roy is NOT going to file a new AEIC for the hearing to decide on the damages that Roy must pay PM, and if Roy is going to use the same AEIC filed previously during the Order 14 hearing, then I will be cross examining Roy.

PSPM, however, misunderstood Singh. She thought Singh meant: “I will be cross-examining Roy if he files a (fresh) AEIC.” And when Ravi replied: “Therefore, I won’t be filing (a fresh AEIC)”. PSPM read Ravi’s reply in context with her misinterpretation of Singh’s statement.

In short, her misinterpretation:

Singh : If Roy files new AEIC, I will cross examine him.

Ravi : Okay, I don’t want Roy to be cross examined, therefore I won’t be filing a new AEIC.

The correct interpretation:

Singh: If Roy is going to order the previous AEIC to stand as AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages, then I will cross examine Roy.

Ravi: I will not be filing a fresh AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages. I will order the previous AEIC to stand as AEIC for the hearing on the assessment of damages. Singh may proceed to cross examine Roy as he said he would.

Judge: Are you sure you’re going to rely on just the AEIC filed previously for the Order 14 hearing? I give you two weeks, you go check if there are further documents you might need for the forthcoming coming.

Clear ?? PSPM ??

Both comments appeared in TRE article: Ms Chang: Ravi selectively omits own words to court

chang-li-lin

Ms Chang Li-Lin,

Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, had earlier on Tuesday (13 January) referred to the legal notes by PM Lee’s lawyers to rebut a statement from Human Rights lawyer, M Ravi who said Ms Chang had issued an “inaccurate statement” and was “misinformed” over his client’s willingness to be cross-examined.

Said Ms Chang in a statement issued to the media on Tuesday: “(Mr Ngerng’s lawyer) M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.”

“My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct,” she added, citing a letter dated Dec 22, 2014, and court submissions on Jan 9 this year as occasions on which Drew & Napier had indicated to the court that Mr Lee was ready to be cross-examined.”

Continue Reading
7 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending