Tag Archives: Davinder Singh

Lawyer Lim Tean recently defended Leong Sze Hian and Terry Xu against Lee Hsien Loong over the 38 Oxley Road saga. Lim Tean shared how these defamation suits may have backfired against Lee Hsien Loong

Don’t worry, readers. Let this Singh tekan Roy until Roy breaks down again and again and then the court award damages totaling a few hundred thousand to PM. Davinder thinks that he is able to show his debating prowess on Roy but nobody will admire him for “tekaning” a defenseless blogger who is not even trained in Law.

Blogger Roy Ngerng took the stand again today (3 Jul) in the final day of the trial to determine the amount of defamatory damages payable to PM Lee. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing Mr Lee, asked Roy if he is apologetic, why he was drawing public attention to the state of the legal process. Roy explained that he kept publishing lawyers’ letters and other updates on the legal battle between him and Mr Lee on his blog “simply as a matter of freedom of speech”.

A tense cross-examination of CPF blogger Roy Ngerng unfolded in the Supreme Court building on Thursday, during day two of the hearing to determine damages the blogger has to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamatory remarks. The public gallery was nearly full, as Senior Counsel Davinder Singh led the cross-examination by building a case against the blogger regarding his intent to defame the prime minister.

I think it is wrong for a reputable law firm to display such unnecessary, high and mighty conduct towards a person who is not trained in the law, who does not understand legal etiquette and whose sole intention was to settle his costs. I am sure the receptionist at Drew & Napier was well intentioned when she/he gave the telephone number of the secretary of the prime minister’s lawyer to Roy.

SENIOR Counsel Davinder Singh was named Disputes Lawyer of the Year for South-east Asia and Indiain inaugural awards by a top law magazine last night.. This included representing the Brunei Attorney-General in prosecuting a US$2.5 million (S$3.2 million) corruption case there and representing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a defamation suit against blogger Roy Ngerng.

Even then Roy exaggerated. PM Lee's lawyers had sent him a cease and desist letter, which said that PM Lee would sue Roy if he did not apologize and remove his offending post. Roy used the opportunity to muddy the water even more by saying he was being sued. If Roy really was being sued there and then the lawyer's letter would have just said we will see you in court instead of basically giving Roy a way out to avoid going to court by apologizing etc. Roy did post an apology as asked. But in the same breathe he also called for Singaporeans to attend the Return our CPF protest on June 7 and announced that he will continue to fight for all of us.

How to tell apart people's problems which are caused by government policies from those which are not? Do people expect that CPF payouts alone would see them through retirement? When did they start to think this way? How many think about it this way? And did our leadership know about this?

To facilitate participation, the CPF strives to include virtually everyone who is engaged in the labor market by having a very low wage threshold above which CPF contributions are automatically triggered and mandated. Presently, the moment an employed person earns $50 or more in a month, contributions are automatically credited into the CPF account and an account is automatically opened if the individual is not already a member of the CPF. Self-employed individuals also need to register with the CPF Board when they commence business. Those requiring trade-licenses will have their CPF accounts automatically opened for them with the approval of the license, if they are not already members.

TTSH pointed out that Mr Ngerng had, on May 23, publicly admitted that he posted a defamatory article on May 15 alleging misappropriation of funds in relation to the Central Provident Fund and described his own allegation as "false and completely without foundation". The hospital said its June 10 statement had laid out the reasons for the termination of contract, "based on his public admission that he had defamed without basis and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for his personal pursuits".