Roy Ngerng, the poster boy for Singaporean rights, also known now as Sneaky Spider, faces a heftier demand for damages after he was found to sneakily send out 2 emails to members of local and international media with the blog posts and youtube video that he was asked to remove by Supreme Leader Lee.
He even went as far as to notify of the addressees of where they could continue to read some of the offending posts after 5pm (on May 26).
Roy now faces the consequences of infuriating the supreme leader through his damaging blog posts; he needs to make an even higher offer of damages.
As a typical middle-class Sinkie, we wonder how Roy is going to raise money to pay for all the legal costs and damages.
Roy might want to consider doing freelance modelling to fund the legal fees and damages. He’s looking quite fabulous here:
Blogger’s moves could amount to ‘very grave aggravation’: PM’s lawyers
SINGAPORE: Lawyers for Mr Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday (May 27) sent Mr Roy Ngerng a legal letter in which the Prime Minister’s legal team claimed that the “Heart Truths” blogger had not removed a video on YouTube, and also sent out two emails in which the video as well as contentious blogposts were republished.
“The fact that your client misled everyone about his promise to remove the YouTube video amounts to very grave aggravation. If the two emails were sent by your client, then that would be further aggravation,” Senior Counsel Davinder Singh wrote.
Mr Ngerng was first issued a legal request on May 19 to remove an article referencing Mr Lee that the Prime Minister’s lawyers said had been “published maliciously”. The blogger removed the post that night, and on Friday submitted his apology via a legal letter as well as a post published on his “Heart Truths” website.
On May 26, Mr Lee’s lawyers sent another legal letter asking for a further four blogposts as well as a related YouTube video be removed, saying the published apology “was not and never meant to be genuine”. Later the same day, Mr Ngerng replied that he would do so, but requested for and was granted an extension of the deadline to make an offer of damages to Mr Lee.
However, according to Mr Singh’s letter, Mr Ngerng “once again misled our client and the public” by not removing the YouTube video, but instead setting it to private. “In other words, your client continues to make it available to a select group of people.”
Added Mr Singh: “After we informed you that our client agreed to your client’s request for an extension of time (to make an offer of damages), we learnt of two emails which appear to have been sent by your client, one to many people, including members of the local and international media, and the other to a blind list.
“These emails republish the YouTube video and the offending posts, but this time to a far wider audience. They also notified the addressees of where they could continue to read some of the offending posts after 5pm (on May 26).
“Those emails also assert that your client’s allegation against our client is ‘the truth’ and that our client has complained about the offending posts ‘to eliminate the evidence of corruption’ from (Mr Ngerng’s blog).”
The two emails, including the list of recipients, were reproduced in the legal letter.
Mr Lee reserves the right to recover aggravated damages for the matters covered in the May 26 and May 27 letters, Mr Singh added.
– CNA/es
thesinkietimes.wordpress.com 