Everything About the First Day of the Trial Between PM Lee & Leong Sze Hian

PM Lee, the man with the most pink shirts in the country, is busy with a trial at the moment.

He’s not the one being tried, of course.

In 2018, when leisure travel wasn’t a fantasy and licking strangers’ faces was completely fine, PM Lee sued blogger Leong Sze Hian for defamation.

Leong had shared an article on Facebook claiming the prime minister had helped to launder 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds.

Now, two years later, Leong is on trial for his alleged offence, and Peoples Voice chief Lim Tean has been hired to defend him.

Before we get into the trial, here’s brief recap of what happened:

Allegations of Money Laundering

On 7 Nov 2018, Leong shared a link to an article from Malaysian news site The Coverage in a Facebook post.

The article alleged that PM Lee had helped former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak launder money from 1MDB, a Malaysian state fund.

For those who don’t know, Najib was accused of channelling over RM 2.67 billion from 1MDB to his personal bank accounts.

The article, as well as a photograph of Najib and PM Lee, gave the impression that the two were in cahoots, and that PM Lee was complicit in Najib’s criminal activity.

According to ST, the content of the article had been taken from the States Times Review (STR) site, which is owned by Singaporean Alex Tan Zhi Xiang who lives in Australia.

In Leong’s defence, Lim Tean argued that the government had already taken sufficient action to debunk the allegations, including statements from MAS, MDA, as well as Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam.

Do note that POFMA took effect only from October 2019, so during the incident, POFMA isn’t a law yet.

PM Lee Questioned By Lim

Today, the hearing on the defamation suit against Leong began, as part of a four-day long trial.

PM Lee was asked a series of questions by Leong’s lawyer Lim Tean, and here’s what he had to say:

1. Had PM Lee Considered Launching a Suit Against STR?

PM Lee initially seemed evasive in his answer, saying the article was a “grave attack on the Singapore Government’s integrity and reputation”, as well as that of his own.

But after a prompt from Justice Aedit Abdullah, PM lee said, “The Government acted and I also had to consult my counsel, and having done so, we decided to proceed in this defamation case against Leong Sze Hian.”

Lim wasn’t satisfied with this answer, however, and reframed the question, asking PM Lee why he hadn’t taken action against STR.

At this point, PM Lee’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh interjected, saying this was privileged information between him and his client.

The judge agreed.

2. Had PM Lee Been Involved In Governmental Statements Made to Debunk the Allegations?

Again, Singh argued that this was privileged information.

“I find this submission absurd. He comes protecting his client who is supposed to be the most powerful man in Singapore and he’s mollycoddling him,” Lim Tean replied.

Singh retorted that this particular discussion would not take the matter further in regard to Lim Tean’s defence.

Justice Aedit agreed, saying he couldn’t see the relevance of the question.

3. Had PM Lee Taken Action Both as Head of Government & As a Private Citizen?

Here, Lim Tean asked PM Lee if he was “riding two horses” by taking action both as head of government and as a private citizen.

PM Lee said he didn’t accept that statement.

“As PM, I am responsible for the operation of government and to make sure it protects its reputation. But at the same time, as a private citizen I have to protect my reputation and integrity and I have a responsibility to do so.”

When Lim Tean asked if there was any conflict of interest between these two roles, PM Lee said no, explaining that he and the government would have to clear their reputations separately.

Lim Tean also asked if any governmental bodies had obtained information to help PM Lee in his case, but was told by the judge that his line of questioning was outside the scope of the current proceedings.

4. Why Was the Defamation Suit Initiated Days After the Authorities Had Made Their Statements?

PM Lee explained that the defamation letter had indeed been sent after the statements were made, but that he had given instructions to his laywer, Singh, before that.

“Whether there were statements by the Government were irrelevant to my decision to sue the defendant. Does he take down, apologise and commit not to repeat? He had not at the time I decided to sue,” he said.

Lim Tean pursued the matter, asking PM Lee if that meant that the statements from the authorities failed in his eyes to persuade the public that the allegations were false.

Justice Aedit, however, found the question to be irrelevant.

Lim Tean argued that while PM Lee had a right to sue his client, his lawsuit was unjustified considering the government had already debunked the allegations.

In response, PM Lee said he has a reputation for suing people who have wrongly impugned him.

“So I have to act. Otherwise the question will arise: He always acts when something serious (has happened)… Why is he not acting?”

5. How Had PM Discovered the Offending Post?

“It was public, the matter was hot… Everyone was scanning what was happening. It came to my attention,” PM Lee said, adding that while he is on Facebook every day, he had not noticed the post himself.

The prime minister said someone else had brought the matter to his attention, though he couldn’t recall who.

“For a matter of such significance on which you chose to sue, you are trying to tell this court you cannot remember who brought it to your attention?” Lim asked.

Lim then asked PM Lee if other such posts which shared a link to the offending article was pointed out to him, to which he said yes.

“So why did you chose to sue the defendant and not others?” Lim asked.

“I saw the people sharing the article. I discussed the matter with my lawyer and after discussion this was what I decided”, PM Lee answered.

And yes, the trial continues tomorrow.

Read Also: Police & School Now Investigating Video of Son Who Hit Mum; Son Allegedly ‘Sorry for What He Has Done’