Roy put the PM on stand and cross-examined him for almost 7-hours yesterday.

By the time the court adjourned, Roy had ended apologising multiple times to PM and explained that it was never his intention to defame him. Yet, throughout the court hearing, immediately after every apology, Roy continues his attack on the PM by highlighting and re-emphasising sections of his defamatory post.

That seems to be Roy’s game plan for yesterday.

To say sorry. To appear apologetic. To ask for second chances.

Apologise to buy time so that he could continue his defamation in the limelight.

“All it would have taken for blogger Roy Ngerng to avoid being sued was one good apology and true contrition” Mr Lee (Source AsiaOne)

Instead, Mr Ngerng repeated the libel and even characterised himself as a victim of political persecution for discussing Central Provident Fund (CPF) issues

Today, it was Roy’s turn to be cross-examined.


PM was represented by Senior Counsel  Mr Davinder Singh from Drew and Napier LLC


Mr Singh immediately grills RN about his understanding of the CNA CHC report from which he used a chart to compare with misappropriated CPF monies.

Singh “You should have known, reading the article that misappropriating of funds is a criminal offence.

RN:. I don’t think the PM misappropriated the funds.

RN: I don’t know what the government has misappropriated.. But I do think that CPF funds were taken without telling [Singaporeans].

RN: I am merely using the term misappropriating of funds because CNA was also using it. I don’t know the full definition of it.

It seems that Roy’s game plan for today was to feign ignorance. – an ordinary blogger who was shocked in being made to pay damages simply for what he wrote

He claimed that he does not know the exact meaning of misappropriation of funds, a term that was used in the CNA article when they were reporting on the City Harverst Church incident.

He added that he fully understood what he wrote — that the CPF monies were being misappropriated by the government — but he lacked understanding of the word “misappropriation”. According to him, He was merely using it because CNA was using it.

Without breaking a sweat, Mr Singh put across the obvious ridiculousness of Roy’s argument.

“Did you when you went with the article believing  that the Singapore government had misappropriated the CPF monies in a way that the CHC had misappropriated the monies”

“You made the allegation in your blog that the government had misappropriated money with the photograph of the plaintiff. And you tell us the plaintiff had done nothing wrong. Therefore what you set out to do was tell your readers that it is true that there has been misappropriation when you know that is not true”

“By publishing the letter of demand on your blog, you were effectively telling your readers where to find the articles.”

“You did not believe you were being silenced, you increased the volume by republishing the letter of demand. Far from you not having any intention of damaging the plaintiff, this shows you were out to hurt him and use the opportunity of the letter of demand to further twice the knife.”

That was about all we could bear. Because Mr Singh had called Mr Roy’s game right from the start.


(Source: TODAY)

This tweet best sums up Day 2 of the hearing.


M Ravi was right – Roy is a swindler

Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 9.03.39 am