Connect with us

Current Affairs

Sarawak Report admonishes PM Lee’s legal team for giving bad advice regarding Leong Sze Hian case

Published

on

The Sarawak Report published an article on 15 December that questions the heavy handed action by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s legal team in taking a citizen to civil court for sharing an erroneous report even after he removed it and apologised.

In early November, local blogger and financial consultant Leong Sze Hian shared an article on his Facebook page by The Coverage which alleged PM Lee was ‘next on the list for 1MDB investigators’. The article claimed that PM Lee was involved in the scandal somehow. That article had claimed that the editor of Sarawak Report gave an interview which revealed this new information.

However, SR quickly came forward to say that they had been misquoted and that they never publicly said that PM Lee was involved in 1MDB. In fact, they had never given any such interview.

Mr Leong can probably be seen as someone who fell for the trap of fake news from disreputable news portal and shared it not knowing that the content was inaccurate.

In fact, after SR denied the false report, Mr Leong had also received a firm letter from the Media Development Authority (IMDA) warning him that he had posted an untrue and libelous article implicating the PM in criminal activity. He was ordered to remove the post.

Mr Leong proceeded to apologise for his error and deleted the Facebook post in which he shared the false report without comment.

SR said that when they interviewed Mr Leong, he told them he willingly removed the link and acknowledged that the article was untrue. But of course, he was surprised to find out that he has been singled out by PM Lee in a civil suit against him for libel.

SR pointed out that Mr Leong is now stuck between a rock and a hard place as any attempt on his side to either settle or defend himself in court will ‘ruin’ him. The PM’s legal team has apparently said that they were after substantial financial damages.

SR then questioned the legal team in the PM’s employ, specifically whether they are truly serving their client or society by applying such a tough approach to a problem that has already been resolved by the state by way of IMDA.

Narrowing in, SR also questioned why Mr Leong is the target of this ‘ruinous retribution from the most powerful person in Singapore’ when he was simply misled like many others and has even removed the link and apologised.

SR noted that this legal action will do not favour for the PM in the public eye.

“The PM’s lawyers should consider how the majority of people will judge this action if it continues to grind through the legal process, compared to a compassionate and magnanimous acceptance of the apologies the Facebook activist has sought to offer?”

They also pointed out that the longer the process drags out in Court, the worse the international and domestic publicity will likely be.

SR questions, “In short, Mr Leong has been dealt with so why is he still being pursued by someone who has endless publicly funded instruments to protect his own reputation along with that of the government?”

SR warned that the litigation could shift opinions from sympathy for the PM for being the victim of irresponsible journalism to people beginning to suspect his motives. They said people would start to see this suit as a veiled attempt by the government to silence a critic – something that Mr Leong admits he is – and that it’s more about his past criticism than this current transgression.

They also said that this action could be construed by some as the government sending a warning against online criticism against the government in general in the run up to the next elections, which are expected to happen in 2019.

They drew comparison to the actions of ex-Malaysian PM Najib Razak in taking harsh actions against his critics. SR pointed out that if the people are suspicious of their PM’s motives, they’re not likely to vote for the ruling party again, possibly kicking them out of office the way Najib Razak’s Barisan Nasional was removed from power earlier this year in Malaysia.

SR has suggested that this show of strength betrays a sense of weakness. The PM, they added, should not target his critic in a legal battle and instead just accept the apology and move on. After all, Mr Leong had already been dealt with officially by the government. So there is no real need for a civil suit.

SR ended with a strong statement against PM Lee’s legal team, saying that they have ‘misadvised their client’. They continued, “the last thing the ruling party needs in the run up to this next election is a martyr in Mr Leong with all the worldwide publicity that is bound to bring.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending