Roy continues to be grilled by Mr Davinder Singh on Day 3 of the hearing.
Mr Davinder cut to the chase and summarised all that we knew all along.
DS: Roy, you mentioned that you were unemployed and staying with your parents. Because of your financial situation, is it not obvious that you should not aggravated the plaintiff further as that could only increase the damages. Furthermore, like you said, you were truly sorry for what you did were you not?
Instead of being truly apologetic and following through with the apology, you consciously chose to do the following.
1 – You chose to post the letter of demand on your blog knowing that that letter of demand contains all the offending words and images.
2- You chose to privatise the offending YouTube video despite being asked to remove it completely and even send emails to multiple people with the links attached.
3 – You chose to bring in international organisations such as London based Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), an organisation that champions human rights, to put pressure on this court.
4- You consciously chose to write and upload several more articles that attacked the plaintiff including an article titled “Tomorrow, My Hearing with the Singapore Prime Minister Begins for the defamation suit” on the eve of the hearing that said “ We have to fight back and take a stand”.
5 – You chose to engage the audience on your blog about CPF even though there were numerous other open channels that you could leverage upon.
You see Roy; from the points above, your apologies are meaningless because your actions do not reflect what you feel.
Your freedom of expression was never curbed, you were conscious when you were doing all these. Despite the lawyers from Drew and Napier reminding you that what you were doing will only increase the aggravated charges, you continue to do so. Repeatedly
M Ravi accused you of being a swindler.
The internet edged you on when you first got the defamation suit but has and now labelled you as a laughing stock.
We do not need to be a senior counsel to see that you have “improper motives” by drawing the public attention to the state of the legal process.
We just hope you would stop saying that you stand up for all Singaporeans. There are more constructive ways to do this. You consciously chose not to leverage on them.
The final submissions will have to be submitted by Aug 31 this year.