Blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian is being sued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation.

It pertains to Leong's sharing of an article, which alleged that PM Lee helped former Malaysia prime minister Najib Razak launder money in relation to Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

The article was shared from Malaysian website The Coverage, with the article itself having been first carried by the States Times Review (STR).

Leong's lawyer, Lim Tean, laid out in a 14-page opening statement on the issues for the court to hear in this defamation hearing, which took place yesterday and today (Oct. 7).

Here is a quick summary of the opening statement and the court proceedings in terms of what the main issues are:

Leong will present himself for cross-examination

The first paragraph highlighted that Leong has served an affidavit and will present himself for cross-examination at the trial.

However, this has not turned out to be the case.

On Oct. 7, Lim said that the defendant will not stand witness, given that they are satisfied with the current admissions.

PM Lee singling Leong out

The statement goes on to say that PM Lee's case is to "single out" Leong for "merely sharing a post to an article", and Lim alleges that it is an abuse of the process of the court, and should have never been commenced.

Here, Lim noted that "many, many other people" also independently aired words complained by Leong, a number that is "believed to be in the thousands", he added.

In addition, Leong is "not the author, editor or commercial publisher of the Post or the article in The Coverage".

Lim thus argued that PM Lee had not explained why he only decided to sue Leong, and not the author, editor or commercial publisher of The Coverage article, nor the many others who have shared it independently.

Lim added that Leong "has acted honestly" at all times, and the accusation that Leong was malicious should not be pursued in court.

Sharing of article doesn't bear "outright meanings of guilt"

With regard to the Facebook post, Lim wrote that the post and article does not "bear the outright meanings of guilt" as argued by PM Lee's case.

Lim argued that the normal reader would not have interpreted the post in the same way as the content in the article.

The statement further described that Leong did not know that the article on The Coverage originated from the States Time Review, and Leong had felt that The Coverage was "reputable and sufficiently serious".

The post received 22 reactions, 5 comments and 18 shares before it was taken down at 7:30am on Nov. 10, 2018.

This was after Leong had read a notice he had received from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which was sent to him at 11 pm, on Nov. 9.

Leong had also shared eight other articles and posts on his Facebook timeline in the same period, and as such, the statement argues that the post in question "would have ceased to feature 'prominently' on his profile page very soon after it was shared".

Plaintiff must prove that there was "substantial publication and republication"

On this point, Lim stated that the plaintiff, PM Lee, must prove that there was "substantial publication and republication" of Leong's post.

Lim wrote that it was not known whether the article had been read by anybody as a result of Leong sharing it on his Facebook page and stated that PM Lee had "served no evidence" thus far.

Lim also argued that the expert evidence brought in by PM Lee, an Associate Professor of Innovation and Information Management at the University of Hong Kong, Phan Tuan Quang, did not support his case of substantial publication.

For the first half of the hearing in the morning of Oct. 7, Lim cross-examined Phan and argued that his report was based on various assumptions, drawn on trends and predictive behaviours, with "hardly any data, or evidence to work on."

Phan disagreed however, highlighting that he had worked with Facebook's data science teams extensively and that the figures he was presenting was what he had seen based on public data and statistical analysis.

No evidence of damage to PM Lee's reputation

Lim also pointed out that Leong did not republish words from the article. Hence, there is “no threat” that Leong would “publish for disseminate” content from the article, noting that Leong had not done so.

Lim also alleged that PM Lee had no evidence that Leong’s actions in sharing the post and having it on his page for 3 days caused any damage to PM Lee, and that PM Lee was “relying on the presumption of damage”.

Lim pointed towards statements made towards the article by the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore, K Shanmugam, Law and Home Affairs minister, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and IMDA.

He argued that readers of the post would have been informed that the article in question was false and defamatory from Nov. 8 in 2018, and would not have caused any damage to PM Lee’s reputation.

"It surely cannot be any part of [PM Lee’s] case that the people of Singapore do not believe what is said by his own Law and Justice Minister or by the High Commission or by the MAS or the IMDA”, the statement read.

Totally unrelated but follow and listen to our podcast here

Top photo by Matthias Ang