Before GE 2015 I was  saying  with regard to  Mr Lee’s defamation case against blogger Roy Ngerng  (the PM took Roy to Court in his personal capacity as Mr Lee)  that Mr Lee clearly hadn’t suffered any damages to either his reputation or his pocket as a result of Roy’s defamation against him.  How about now post GE2015?

First, for the record, I have always believed that Roy did defame Mr Lee but that as he didn’t intend to cause him harm and apologised the ensuing action by the PM was out of proportion.

I fielded Roy against the PM in part because I don’t like bullies, in part because I wanted to cut through the climate of fear and in part because my late father and the founder of The Reform Party has been through similar experiences but NOT because I agreed with what Roy wrote.

My view has always been that more damage to Mr Lee’s  reputation was as a result of his refusal to accept an apology  in the first place and then  move on. Mr Lee also turned down Roy’s initial offer of S$5,000.  Mr Lee’s ill advised law suit damaged not only his own reputation, showing him up to be a petty bully who would stoop so low to sue a blogger but also damaged Singapore’s reputation. Many foreign media reported on the case embarrassingly with The Economist referencing  the uneven power distribution and unnecessary force as  a ‘Butterfly being Broken on a Wheel’.Last week the PM and his Party, the PAP were returned to government with  a convincing mandate as a result of the votes cast in  GE 2015 . In particular in  Ang  Mo Kio  where the blogger turned politician Roy Ngerng  stood against him in the Reform Party team, Mr Lee won with such an overwhelming majority that he will find it nearly impossible to prove financial damages. His reputation is also clearly intact. What actual damage has he suffered ? None!

Ang Yong Guan who left Singapore Democratic Party to contest GE 2015 with the Sing First Party picks up my point on his Facebook page recently where he says:

Well the Supreme Court of Singapore is for damages being sought equal to or in excess of S$250,000 but that doesn’t mean the Judge must award S$250,000 or more. He/She is not prevented by law from awarding a lesser  sum.   In the UK £1:00 is awarded as a token, to prove a point. This is usually that defamation has been proven so the judge must award something but to show his disapproval of the case he awards the lowest possible amount and each side pays its own costs.In Singapore I  think it would be a very brave judge indeed  that would award S$1:00 to Mr Lee.  The only case I know of that has ever beaten Mr Lee in Court is the  landmark constitutional case won by M Ravi another Reform Party candidate, limiting the PM’s powers and establishing that the PM does not have unfettered discretion in when to call a by-election.

I don’t believe Foreign interest in the case  or pressure will sway the Courts either.  In fact the Justice has already made a statement in relation to the fact that ICJ observed the case.

“Justice Lee Seiu Kin on Friday had stated that he felt “absolutely no pressure” from foreign organisations, but would accept and consider the
points made in both ICJ’s brief as well as that submitted by the Centre for International Law (CentreLaw) in the Philippines.”

I believe if  any such point about lack of proven damages were to be made by the Justice, the sum is more likely to be in the region of S$10-20,000 to be awarded for hurt feelings. It would need to be more than the S$5,000 already offered by Roy but far less than the  S$250,000.

Political bearing and the role of the Reform Party
Don’t forget this is a civil case. Roy also has a criminal case pending. If the fine in that case is excessive then according to the Law Roy will be prevented from standing for election for a period of 5 years. No matter what amount awarded against Roy in Mr Lee’s civil case it can’t stop Roy from standing. It could still appear to be politicly motivated though. Now that Roy has shown political allegiance by joining The Reform Party and has contested an election it could be claimed that the civil suit was motivated less by the need to prove defamation against Mr Lee the civilian than by the motivation of Mr Lee the PM, to crush an opposition voice. How ironic that the founder of the Reform Party  J B Jeyaretnam was himself sued into oblivion by the PAP. Although that was before crowd funding!

The PAP win in AMK may well turn out to be a hollow victory for Mr Lee.

Please also read my earlier rebuttal to claims that Roy shouldn’t be contesting an election and was “a ticking time bomb”  here .