On Thursday, we saw more drama on the second of the three-day defamation damages hearing between Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and blogger Roy Ngerng.

We showed you some of the questions the 34-year-old asked PM Lee in order to build his case of no-malice and lack of influence on Lee's reputation, as well as how Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, Lee's lawyer, pressed down hard on Ngerng in response throughout the second day.

We now bring you some of the things Singh and Ngerng said to each other in the six hours Ngerng spent on the stand on Day 2, compiled from our reporters on the ground, Today and The Straits Times:

1. On first receiving the defamation letter

Davinder Singh: You were obviously concerned that you would be made a bankrupt.

Roy Ngerng: Anyone would be.

Singh: Instead of being scared… you increased your volume by republishing the offending words in the letter of demand. (Far) from you not having intention to damaging the plaintiff, this shows you were out to hurt him and further twist the knife.

2. On Roy Ngerng’s two emails to 70 journalists and a blind list, informing them where they can find the libellous material and video:

Singh: The plaintiff was saying that despite your conduct, he was prepared not to ask for aggravated damages if you (had honoured your promise of removing the blog post and video... Yet,) you duped your own lawyers. You knew you had no intention to take down the video.

[Background information: Four people could view the video after Ngerng made it private: Leong Sze Hian, Han Hui Hui, M Ravi and an unknown Facebook account named Singapore Singaporeans, which has since now been deleted.]

2a. When Singh asserted that Ngerng's YouTube video was linked to Lee's letter of demand

Ngerng: When you want to talk about my arm, you talk about it in relation to the rest of me, not my arm in relation to another person.

2b. Why he did not take down the video clip from YouTube

Ngerng: (My laptop was messy and I needed to privatise the video in order to find it. Besides,) Einstein was a messy person and that’s why he’s so smart.

3. The word "apology"

Singh: I suggest to you, Mr Ngerng, that the word "apology" is completely meaningless to you. Do you agree or disagree?

Ngerng: I do not agree...

Singh: Every time you get caught, you apologise for convenience, but you carry on doing what you have always intended to do.

Ngerng: No, that is not true.

Singh: We have seen from your conduct, in less than 10 days from the date of the (letter of) demand — May 18 to May 27 — that when you were caught libelling, you apologised. But you continued to post the letter of demand with the offending words. When you were caught with the YouTube video, you apologised, but you privatised it and sent it out to editors. When you were caught with the e-mails, you apologised, and you said it was a momentary lapse of judgment, when today you accept that it wasn't.

Ngerng: Huh? I said it was.

Singh: In this court, you have used the word apology so many times that, really Mr Ngerng, it's quite clear that it's purely tactical and completely insincere.

Ngerng: I disagree... As the PM admitted (on Tuesday), the four articles and YouTube video did not mention his name in a defamatory light, nor the allegation. The two e-mails (to the media) also referred to corruption or the Government's use of CPF funds. It was not about Mr Lee's use of CPF funds. In the first e-mail, there is a link... to the re-publication of the offending words and images and for that I have apologised...

The apology remains. As much as I acknowledge the four articles and video are not aggravating and do not repeat the libel, I took them down because I did not want to aggravate the issue.

The e-mails refer to the corruption in the Government. But we panicked because the Government, the PM sent another e-mail and we did not want him to think that we wanted to aggravate the issue. That's why I also sent that letter to apologise.

At no point was the apology less sincere. Because... I do not believe, I mean, there's no way I can prove it, except to say I do not believe Mr Lee has ever misappropriated CPF funds because I do not have evidence of that. I am not going to make any allegation of that... I am telling you here, now, there is still no intent with wanting to say it was Mr Lee who was using our CPF funds...

I would draw the line between the Government's use of CPF funds and what I say about how the Government uses it, with how you want to insinuate that I'm talking about the PM. Because they are two very separate things. Just as how the defamatory suit and the CPF are two very separate things. So please let us keep the line clear because if you keep crossing (it), sometimes I miss it; I admit to something, then I make myself look guilty when I'm actually admitting to something that I should not be admitting.

4. On being "petrified"

Singh: I am talking about 19 May 2014. In this so-called petrified state, and with the anxiety of bankruptcy hanging over your head as you claimed, you republished the very article, which you now claimed you were worried would get you into trouble.

Ngerng: Yes, I did. As you said, because of my petrified state, what would a person have done [sic] would be to look through the whole article that they were sued for. I am not sure how long it was, but my immediate reaction was one of shock, fear. I immediately looked for (lawyer) M Ravi. I just told him, "I got sued, what should I do?"

And if the recommendation was that I should also put on my blog because I was scared — I was scared and I wanted people to know I was scared. You know the Prime Minister sued me and as a blogger, what would my natural reaction be? What should my natural reaction be? Which ordinary Singaporean gets sued on a daily basis, or ever, by the Prime Minister?

Singh: You wanted your readers to know you were scared... let's test that. Look at what you said: "I have just been sued by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Hello everyone, I am Roy Ngerng. I am an ordinary citizen in Singapore who believes in speaking up for my country and my fellow citizens." Is that the language of a scared person, or is that the language of a person who has decided that this is an opportunity to raise (his) profile?

5. Breaking down the defamatory post

Singh: Having regard to the fact that this paragraph (on the use of funds) is about City Harvest (Church's leaders who are facing an ongoing funds misappropriation trial), not about the government, having regard to the fact that the paragraph has already been referred to on the first page of the (original) post, why would you have repeated that paragraph under the second post?

Ngerng: I don't know.

Singh: You don't know. All right, let's just take that for now.

Ngerng: I would say I don't know, I would say I am just referring to the government.

Singh: Don't guess, please. If you have an answer, tell us; if you don't have an answer, tell us, but don't guess.

Ngerng: I don't have an answer.

Singh: Thank you. ... So, on your evidence today, this is what you said about what you knew in May 2014 when you wrote this article.

- You knew that you were alleging that the government had misappropriated the Central Provident Fund monies.

- You knew that the chart illustrated how the government had misappropriated the CPF monies.

- You knew that you had made a comparison to City Harvest Church in circumstances where it has been reported that four City Harvest accused (persons were) charged with misappropriation and you knew that misappropriation was a crime.

And you have the audacity in your affidavit and in court yesterday and today to tell the court that you have no intention to defame?

6. On Ngerng's alleged motive to boost his standing and reputation

Singh: The reason you decided to craft the blog in a way in which you did with

- the replication of the allegations and the charges,

- the repetition of the charts with photographs and in colour,

- the repetition of the paragraph of the judges' findings (on the CHC case) below the second chart

was so as to sensationalise the CPF issue in circumstances where you were concerned that not many people were reading your blog... Do you agree or disagree?

Ngerng: I disagree. Why would I want to sensationalise the issue on the CPF? If I sensationalise the issue, then as a blogger, my credibility will be gone. I've told you, I've put things based on factual information on the CPF on my blog.

Singh: And you were so malicious so as to enhance your own standing to damage (the) standing of the plaintiff in his capacity as Prime Minister and Chairman (of the GIC)... So consumed were you by your desire to promote yourself as champion of Singaporeans on CPF issues and to generate greater interest in your blog that you were prepared to make what you knew was an untrue accusation against the plaintiff as Prime Minister and the Chairman of GIC. Do you agree or disagree?

Ngerng: Mr Singh, I am not consumed by my desire to promote myself. As I said, I do not care about my reputation. I am a champion of Singaporeans on CPF issues, because the Prime Minister sued me and forced me to become the face of the CPF.

I do not care about the interest of my blog, because if the government actually takes care of Singaporeans, I'd be more than happy to stop writing. I'd be more than happy to be a waiter or a cleaner if the government actually takes care of Singaporeans.

Top photos by Ng Yi Shu.

Read also:

Questions Roy Ngerng asked PM Lee Hsien Loong during 7-hour cross-examination

This was how Senior Counsel Davinder Singh tore blogger Roy Ngerng a new one in 3-hour cross-examination

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh returns the favour, grills blogger for 3 hours continuously on day two of hearing

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.