Singapore PM's Libel Suit: Defendant Not Taking The Stand

By Massita Ahmad SINGAPORE, Oct 8 (Bernama) -- Defence counsel for blogger Leong Sze Hian who is sued for libel by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has elected “not to call any evidence on his client's behalf”. “We are not calling the defendant at all,” counsel Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers told Bernama at the end of today’s proceedings, here. “We have enough to submit to the judge that there is no case for us to answer. The plaintiff’s case is so weak. There is no need for us to put the defendant as a witness,” said Lim. Asked what would be the consequences of not calling the evidence for the defence, Lim said: “The judge will still have to decide whether the plaintiff or defendant wins the case.” He said both parties were going to exchange written submissions and the court would hear again on Nov 30. Lee, 68, in his capacity as a private citizen, had sued Leong over a post shared on his Facebook page in November 2018, which contained a link to an article by the Malaysian news site, The Coverage. Although the post had already been removed, Lee chose to go ahead to sue Leong on the basis of “removal does not expunge the defamation”. The plaintiff said the online article contained “false and clearly libellous” allegations linking him to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) money-laundering scandal. The content of the article was taken from the States Times Review page. In elaborating on the reasons before Justice Aedit Abdullah for not to call evidence for the defence, Lim said "the defence bears the burden of proof only in respect of one of the nine issues set out by the plaintiff”. Lim said the issue was in relation to whether the plaintiff's decision to issue these proceedings against the defendant was an abuse of process. On the other eight issues, Lim who is the founding leader of the political party Peoples Voice, said his position was that “the plaintiff bears the burden of proof”. At Wednesday’s earlier session, expert witness Dr Phan Tuan Quang from the Hong Kong University Business School gave evidence to the court via video link. To one of the questions when cross-examined by Lim, Phan replied that he knew that the plaintiff in the libel case is the Prime Minister of Singapore and head of the Singapore government. Lim: Would you agree with me that you cannot claim to be an independent expert because you have received 23 grants in the past from the Singapore government and you would have a certain bias towards the plaintiff? Phan: I have never met the plaintiff in person. These were...all these grants were reviewed by external reviewers globally. They are not granted solely by the decision of a single person. These grants also involved large efforts and across multiple priorities, including international collaborators. Lim: I put it to you, Dr Phan, that you are not an independent expert and that your evidence is tainted by the fact that you have a past relationship with the Singapore government, of which the plaintiff is the head. Phan: Well, for one, I'm no longer in Singapore. I'm in Hong Kong. And that was clearly after the case started. Yes, I was in Singapore and NUS (National University of Singapore) employed me for some time, but as I mentioned, we have quite a bit of academic freedom to pursue matters objectively. To another question from Lim, Phan said he believed in the profession and as an academic, could give evidence objectively. -- BERNAMA