include("cmp.php");

Updates on Leong Sze Hian and Terry XU’s libel suits

Terry Xu And Leong Sze Hian – 2 Libel Trials With Lee Hsien Loong.

All of you know that in early October this year, the trial of the libel proceedings which Lee Hsien Loong instituted against Leong Sze Hian took place.

Since then, the Lawyers have gone through 2 rounds of written submissions and on Monday, 30 November at 230 pm, the 2 sets of Lawyers will appear in open court before Justice Aedit Abdullah to make the final oral arguments in the case. After that the judge will take time to consider his decision and no doubt will hand down a written judgment after deliberation. The oral arguments will take place in Court 4B in the Supreme Court Building.

That same morning, in the same courtroom 4B, the other libel trial between Lee Hsien Loong and Terry Xu begins before Justice Audrey Lim. I am also representing Terry Xu in that trial. Lee Hsien Loong is represented by the same set of Lawyers who represented him in the Leong Sze Hian case. I will begin cross-examination of Lee Hsien Loong that morning. The trial in Terry Xu’s case will continue until 4 December. So 1 whole week has been set aside for it.

If you wish to get a seat in Court, you have to start queuing very early. And I mean very early!

 

* Facebook post by Lim Tean.

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

28 Responses to “Updates on Leong Sze Hian and Terry XU’s libel suits”

  • Elites screw Singaporeans:

    LHL is spending a lot of his time and wasting tax payers money FIXING anyone who do not agree with him or different views to his.His irk and that of his party is mediocre at best.His team of 4 generation leaders are useless and do not have the people’s confidence.Heng Sweet Cake is a stroke patient and has done terribly in parliament.His garnering of 53 percent of the votes in the last elections is nothing to be proud of.
    LHL SHOULD spend his time and effort bringing Singapore out of this Covid-19 crisis.He seems to SUE anyone at a drop of the hat.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Elites screw Singaporeans:

    LHL will go down history as the FIXER PM.He has not done anything of significance to Singapore and the HARD TRUTH aid he does not justify his astronomical pay.All his years of hand holding by his father and Goh has not taught him anything good.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Elites screw Singaporeans:

    Singaporeans only look up to LHL because he is PM and son of LKY.If he is a common man no body will give a rat’s a$$e about him.There is no goodness in him only evil

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TUMASIK Patriot:

    Truth must PREVAIL even with the Devil & his Demons PRESENT…

    The Blind Lady with the scale will be a JOKE if Justice & TRUTH has a finger on a side of the scale to Tip the Balance from “TRUTH”

    Whose Finger??? God alone will be the Judge on whose finger it will be and Karma and RETRIBUTION will HAUNT him/her the rest of their LIVES Living with…

    “EVIL…the reverse of LIVE”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • angry citizen:

    To sacrifice own people to save one skin – nothing great leh, in fact Ugly.

    Pitiful Leong, merely shared a link, now apparently and conveniently being used to frighten and to curb ugly news from spreading.

    I think he is frighten of foreign jurisdiction or what, can’t win there or unable to influence the outcome or what, I don’t know? Or is it can only win in local law? Why dare not sue the real foreign abuser? macam itu kepala cannot lah?

    No wonder the old man was a jipuno interpreter before. Where cool where sit.
    mobilization jangan ganggu saya.

    sia suey lah!.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    Seems Lee Seow Long is so free sueing the citizens whom he is supposed to SERVE,no less.

    Guess,he thinks he has resolved DENGUE N COVID AND TOOK CARE of the needs of jobless sgs n the elderly poor?
    Guess he feels SHIOK NO OPPO FROM PSP OR SDP CAN STOP HIM from LOOTING $100 BILLION FROM RESERVES ANYRMTIME he fancies?
    And,suka suka decide how little to grant needy citizens so that he could please outsiders by granting their citizens much more?

    Lee Seow Long seems to have IDENTITY PROBLEM.
    He thinks the voters must serve him when he is just a paid PUBLIC servant,no doubt the highest servant of all like the CHIEF EUNUCH IN CHINESE KINGDOM?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    I think it is clear what the outcome is going to be. Just Team Despot doing its usual housecleaning. Cancerman and his 4G Circus daring anyone to offend him or face the consequences.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Please lah, u call these renz:

    Singaporeans r a pathetic lots calling your human waste ,elite. Look elite has more integrity n dignity to brownose n to take the huliation sitting down n be slapped justfor the dols. how pathetic! Look if one has doneresptably his duty, no one and no one will go all the way to put pees n poos all over you. only pees n poos will do that. just like Robert de Nero put it, crooks have more moral. Seriously after what lhy n lwl told u, compliant bureaucrats, presumably what they mean iclude both pol n career. So it not now a win win post lhy lwl notigication!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Eddie:

    Hope the Third Parties in this case spring to life; as they can defend themselves of what they said of LHL since they were not allowed to defend themselves in parliament. Only LHL ownself cleared ownself!!
    Apparently there was the abuse and mis-used of parliament for a matter which is basically personal; hence it is a waste of taxpayers money in this matter.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP GAME the Nation's COFFERS:

    May cancer return to bring this good for nothing to papa.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • I worry for Terry and I hope that should the case goes against him, the siblings would come forward to help since Terry was merely reporting on what they had alleged. Whatever damages the judge may award are merely petty cash to them.

    With TRE’s impending last dance, it would be bad to lose TOC too, both of which have been the longest-serving socio-political blogs in Sinkieland.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    After reading what have been reported of the Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian, and Lee Hsien Loong v Terry Xu of TheOnLineCitizen cases, I think Lim Tean could have better cross-examined LHL.

    Sinkies, especially those rabid commenters on TRE, should understand that our system of law is one of ADVERSARIAL contest in the court. Even as sinkies know or think that those being sued face inherent disadvantages, it is nevertheless incumbent on the Defence to show up the Plaintiff’s weakness…………to the extent that if the judge had in any way breached his/her oath of office under the Constitution, the judge would be subject to odium, contempt and derision for his/her unjust decision.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    Terry Xu should survive this legal battle. $150k is not an impossible sum to raise with the public chipping in – if he loses in Court. Ah Loong is asking for $150k compensation, barring any prohibitive and punitive court fees set by the state, Terry Xu and by extension TOC will live on.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @nathan chen

    $150k is about just right but I think the judge may award something on the low end of the 6-figures, maybe $100k.

    You are right on ease to raise that amount, but the premise being are its readers willing to help? TOC is not WP, who can easily raise $1 million in 3 days. The support base for socio-political blog are clearly smaller than for a political party.

    Anyway, I think since its the siblings’ accusations to begin with and Terry being on “talking terms” with the siblings, maybe the siblings might help terry out by footing the bill, since $100k is merely petty case to them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Cliff:

    It just a matter of time,”everyone.”

    Will get the taste of living away.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    Just read ST on Lim’s cross examining LHL. PM claimed he had hide to abide by his Ministers’ decision not to demolish that house, and he told LKY that, and he claimed his father understood. Lim Tean was probably right to lead-question PM as regards the underlying real truth on the matter. Had not LKY’s standard instruction to MPs been somewhat as “rather than giving in and agreeing, your job is to convince your constituents of our policies”? Surely, then, LKY’s retort to his son – his choice PM, must have likewise been “surely, as PM, you get your Ministers to agree to your viewpoint, rather than going unwillingly along with them”? Lim Tean was probably right to put it to LHL that, given the culture of “leadership” LKY had so successfully cultivated, the real truth of the matter could never be Cabinet Ministers resisting PM’s views and PM having unwillingly to abide by majority Cabinet decision.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Aiya:

    Lim should have persuaded Lee HY to testify as a witness to blow off the family grievance after the death of their papa. this will give LHY a chance to clarify the family issue on the house. the ratiionale of calling him in as a witness is legally relevant as the oxley is in question n an one sided version is really humiliating the execution of laws on evidence. As compliancy is entailed, this will be a lky self engineered chance to right the wrong n oversight on nepotism n wrong choice of insurance of its continuance. Yes for once hl is speaking the truth, he is in a sad state n sinkies r in a sadder state with his fear of disclosing the big greed mouth of hpis G on the issue of $100 m ++++ that he needed LW to mouth stupidity about privately own temasek when the legal owner is Govt of Singpore meaning the entire citizenry is the owner n hence have the right to know the facts as SGX ruling impied! to silence him lest he regrets n correct himself with the truth, his promotion into the secret top immediately following his ill considered bootlicking acts evidenced. Any way Lim should have done the lee fam a good turn in honour the shrewdness of the lao lee with the opprtunity to speak his restless grievance by the vengeful miscondjuct which he cannot believed to be turning against him. perhaps the karma exacts it on the yuen of the gentle medic. yea call hy on the stand n perhaps also wl to check on compliancy with their he old man issue b4 them!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • gfdgfdg:

    They can simply just work with social media site admins to auto-block all the sites and pages that they don’t like, like what ISP been doing with a blacklist. Don’t have to sue anyone at all for sharing the page and sites.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on the TISG :Quote -”Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer Kwa Kim Li to take the stand in PM Lee’s defamation suit against TOC’s Terry Xu

    Ms Kwa will testify at 2.45pm and be examined by Mr Xu’s lawyer, Lim Tean, and cross-examined by PM Lee’s personal lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh….

    Obbana Rajah…
    December 3, 2020….

    The lawyer who prepared six wills for the late Lee Kuan Yew is set to appear at the High Court on Thursday (Dec 3) to testify in a defamation suit against The Online Citizen (TOC) editor Terry Xu.
    In a closed-door hearing on Thursday (Dec 3) morning, Justice Audrey Lim, the judge presiding over the trial dismissed Ms Kwa’s application to set aside the subpoena on her to testify.
    Ms Kwa is set to take the stand at 2.45pm and be examined by Mr Xu’s lawyer, Lim Tean, and cross-examined by PM Lee’s personal lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.
    Mr Xu first applied to subpoena Ms Kwa on Oct 7 this year, a Straits Times online article reported. This came after he managed to obtain copies of documents that emerged during a disciplinary tribunal’s investigations into misconduct by Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s wife, senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern….

    The documents included e-mails exchanged between Ms Kwa and the late Mr Lee in 2011 and 2012, which Mr Xu relied on on to show that the founding prime minister did believe his house had been gazetted and that Ms Kwa subsequently told him she could not find the gazette notice.
    Ms Kwa, the niece of the late Mr Lee’s wife Kwa Geok Choo, is represented by lawyers from Drew and Napier. She was the lawyer tasked with drafting Mr Lee’s will and had admitted to being part of drafting six of the seven wills from 2011 to 2012.
    “Kwa Kim Li (KKL) of Lee & Lee has denied involvement in the 2013 will. This is false”, said Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
    In a Facebook post on Wednesday (Aug 19), Dr Lee wrote that she had shared evidence to show Ms Kwa’s involvement in Mr Lee’s last will.
    In her post, Dr Lee shared an email exchange between Ms Kwa and her late father, dated December 12, 2013.
    In the email, Ms Kwa wrote: “Dear Uncle Harry, Under your present will dated 2 nov 2012, Ling has been given 1 share more than Loong and Yang, out of your total estate. This is because you reasoned that Ling does not have double income like her brothers”.
    She added, “We discussed last week that you would now like to sign a Codicil to change this, and to give Ling equal shares with Loong and Yang out of the total estate”.
    In 2017, Ms Kwa denied that she had a role in Mr Lee’s last will.
    The managing partner of the Lee & Lee law firm had prepared the previous six versions of the will of the late Mr Lee who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
    Ms Kwa told The Straits Times: “I did not prepare the last will”.
    Mr Lee Hsien Yang also said in a Facebook post that his wife’s firm, Stamford Law Corporation – now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC – did not draft any of the late Mr Lee’s wills.
    “The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee,” he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will.
    He added that the will’s seventh paragraph, in which the late Mr Lee stated that he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, “was drafted at LKY’s (Lee Kuan Yew’s) direction”.
    It was “put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will,” said Mr Lee Hsien Yang. -/TISG….”Unquote.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    The following extracts from the Yahoo report on the testimony of Kwa Kim Li who is the niece of Lee Kuan Yew’s wife, Kwa Geok Choo, and who had admitted to drafting and preparing LKY’s Wills – 1 to 6 – and who had been instructed by LKY to revert the division of his assets EQUALLY among his children, in my view, contradicted PM Lee Hsien Loong’s testimony on whether he had in fact told LKY that 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted.

    Why would LKY instruct Kwa Kim Li to search the Government Gazette if not to confirm whether 38 Oxley Road had been declared a national heritage site if not after being alleging told by PM Lee that it had been declared to be a heritage site?

    I would caution readers to read the Yahoo article in its entirety to make up your own mind.

    By the way, it would also be interesting to know what Kwa Kim Li had written to LKY’s children on 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015, detailing instructions from their father and attaching other related documents.

    https://sg.yahoo.com/news/lee-kuan-yews-kwa-kim-lee-libel-suit-toc-terry-xu-090204007.html

    Lim asked Kwa to confirm that all the wills she had prepared for the late Lee contained a demolition clause in respect of 38 Oxley Road, except for the final two wills she prepared for him dated 20 September 2012 and 4 October 2012. Kwa replied “yes”.
    He then turned to an email on 6 September 2012 that the late Lee had sent to Kwa and Dr Lee, pointing out handwritten notes in the document stating, “I can’t find gazette. Told him”.
    Lim asked when Kwa had searched for the gazette, and Kwa replied around September 2012. She added that she could not remember if it was before or after the email.
    Kwa replied, “First time was around time of the email, I asked for my librarian to check for me. Second time I checked, I searched, it was perhaps a few days after I asked one of my colleagues, one of my lawyers, to check for me.”…

    During Lim’s questioning, it emerged that Kwa had sent a letter to the late Lee’s children on 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015, detailing instructions from their father and attaching other related documents.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    If I am not wrong, the Court had granted probate sometime in August 2015 which was after what Kwa Kim Li had been reported to have written to LKY’s children “detailing instructions from their father and attaching other related document”, showing conclusively that Lee Suet Fern was NEVER LKY’s lawyer for the 7th Will which was the one filed for probate.

    So much for the (unlawful and egregiously wrong) findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal that Suet Fern was LKY’s lawyer as a result of Suet Fern having an “implied retainer” role…………..no wonder Dr Lee Wei Ling described the DT decision as a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE………..which I fully agree that it – the DT’s finding – to be a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

    And so was the 3 Judges Court hearing Suet Fern’s appeal against the DT finding…………and which was criticised by the former Mayor of London and who was a past President of the London Law Society as a “STAIN” in Singapore’s international reputation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on the TISG :Quote -”Bertha Henson: PM Lee’s siblings should be called to witness stand

    “So his siblings get a free pass while others who take them at their word get it in the neck? Cannot be,” said Ms Henson

    Anna Maria Romero

    December 4, 2020….

    Singapore—On the ongoing defamation suit Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong filed against Terry Xu, Editor in Chief of The Online Chronicles (TOC), former Straits Times journalist Bertha Henson said that since the siblings of PM Lee “are the source of all this,” they should be called to the witness stand.
    The trial has been ongoing since Monday (Nov 30), with Ms Kwa Kim Li, the lawyer who prepared several of the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s wills scheduled to appear at the High Court on Thursday (Dec 3).
    Prof Henson, who now teaches journalism at the National University of Singapore, said in a Facebook post that she is “getting quite tired” of the case.

    “The siblings should be called to the stand – they are the source of all this. TOC should have just got court to call them as witnesses even if not in third-party action,” she added.

    PM Lee filed the suit last year after an article with the headline “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching, weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members” was published on the TOC website and Facebook page on Aug 15, 2019…

    The article mentioned the rift between PM Lee and his siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the will of their father the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and the family property at 38 Oxley Road.
    PM Lee took the witness stand on Monday morning (Nov 30).
    During the course of his cross-examination, Mr Lim Tean, the lawyer of Mr Xu, asked PM Lee why he had not filed a lawsuit against his brother and sister for defamation.
    While Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are listed as third parties to the defamation case, they have not been called as witnesses. Mr Lim said at a pre-trial conference on Nov 2 that it was likely that his client would no longer pursue third-party proceedings.
    PM Lee answered Mr Lim by saying that he has not brought his sister and brother to court for defamation but added that it doesn’t mean he will never do so.
    He also said that he and his wife, Ms Ho Ching, hold no animosity towards his siblings, and that he hopes that matters between them will be repaired one day.

    Prof Henson gave her opinion on this as well, writing that PM Lee “won’t sue siblings, because he is their brother. In matters like this which go into the public eye, you can’t be EITHER family member OR PM.

    I honestly believe that PM should have set aside personal considerations right from the start. So his siblings get a free pass while others who take them at their word get it in the neck? Cannot be.”

    —/TISG…”Unquote.

    Response :Prof Henson view may be right .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Bertha Henson, like most sinkies especially those whose livelihood is dependent on being paid from taxpayers money, like one Tommy Koh Tong Bee and better known as Professor Tommy Koh who at 83 or thereabout, is the Rector of Tembasu College at the NUS law school, lacks the critical thinking skills to look at the OVERALL picture or view the matter in CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE, in calling for the Lee siblings – Hsien Yang and Wei Ling – to testify in the Lee Hsien Loong v Terry Xu’s defamation suit.

    In so far as the issue of LKY’s Will on the demolition of HIS HOUSE at 38 Oxley Road is concerned, people like Henson should have asked PM Lee Hsien Loong why was it that he did not bring the matter into the open/public domain soon after LKY was had executed his 7th Will around mid-December 2013 when LKY was still alive?

    Surely LKY would be the original/primary and THE person who could have told the public what he TRUE wishes were, as expressed in his Will. …in the sense that he HAD the testamentary capacity to execute the will FREELy ie not subjected to undue influence. It is also well known FACT that LKY had on several occasions publicly stated that his wife, Kwa Geok Choo and himself wanted 38 Oxley Road to be demolished to make way for any new housing development in order that the State would not need to spend on its upkeep, as well as to realise the profit potential of the new development.

    What prompted LKY to request HIS LAWYER, Ms Kwa Kim Li, to search the Govt. Gazette to find out is 38 Oxley Rd had indeed be gazetted as a heritage site forbidding its demolition, if not for the prima facie reason that PM Lee Hsien Loong had told him so, as alleged by PM Lee’s siblings who are the joint Executors and Trustees of LKY’s will? Ms Kwa has testified in Court that she had searched the Gazette at least TWICE for any order to preserve 38 Oxley Road, but could not find any such news. Surely LKY must have stressed to her the importance of the purported gazetting of 38 Oxley Rd as a heritage site. It is also an incontrovertible fact that it was LKY who had discussed amending/changing his 6th will to divide his estate equally amongst his 3 children and also to reiterate in his will to have 38 Oxley Road demolished.It is also indisputable that even as Ms Kwa was NOT involved in the engrossment and execution of LKY’s 7th Will, it is nevertheless incontrovertible that,except for the gift-over clause, 7th Will was exactly similar to the 1st Will on LKY’s wish to distribute his assets equally and that he wanted his house at 38 Oxley Road demolished.

    So where is/was the conflict of interest in regard to Lee Suet Fern’s assisting in the execution of the 7th Will as instructed by LKY to Hsien Yang? Also, even tho Ms Kwa was not involved in the execution (rather than the drafting of) the 7th Will, she was given a copy of LKY’s will. To be cont’d

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Her testimony that she had twice written to LKYs 3 children on matters pertaining to the Will/LKY’s instruction clearly showed that she had been LKY’s lawyer throughout…………and that Lee Suet Fern was NEVER LKY’s lawyer in the first instance. Hence she should NEVER had been referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal for her alleged contravention of the Legal Profession Act and its subsidiary legislation the Professional Conduct Rules, of which she was cleared by the 3 Judges’Court.

    The 3 Court judges decision that she did not act as LKY’s lawyer, should have been the end of the proceedings and judgment. But the 3 judges Court decided to suspend her for 15 months for professional misconduct under the PCR when she did not act as an advocate and solicitor for LKY’s 7th Will of which LKY had read carefully and initialed on every page..How could this – the misconduct finding – be so,when she did NOT, and the 3 Judges’ Court ruled that she did NOT act as LKY’s lawyer? Surely this was just to inflict damage to her in accordance to PM Lee’s public pronouncement to “fix” his critics and opponents, using the judiciary?

    As Bertha might well be aware the former Lord Mayor of London and who also was the President of the London Law Society had written in the South China Morning Post and remarked that the suspension of Lee Suet Fern represented a “STAIN to Singapore’s international standing”…..

    Together with the Liyani’s case which led to Assoc Professor Eugene KB Tan of SMU law school to express his concern at to the quality of the Singapore judiciary and who was followed by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal in the Straits Times, supposed influencers like Besnon should view the Lee Hsien Loong v Terry Xu’s defamation case in the context of the overall development of Singapore’s judiciary rather than just the isolated alleged defamation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    If Bertha Benson is REALLY concern about developments – legal, political, economic and social – in Singapore, she should write to the Straits Times to enguire why the ST did not publish , let alone mention about the letter written by the former Lord Mayor of London who also was once a President of the London Law Society, and which was published in the South China Morning Post expressing his view that the 3 Judges Court decision to suspend Lee Suet Fern from practise represent a “STAIN on the international reputation of Singapore”?

    Bertha Henson might also do well to understand what are the characteristics of a person’s WILL and that a person is at liberty to change his Will at anytime at his own choosing when he is still live and possesses the testamentary capacity.

    Otherwise, just shut up.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Oh, Bertha Henson and other sinkies of similar mental faculty might also like to find out the pros and cons of how judges of the Supreme Court are selected in various common law countries and also the administrative laws governing a judge’s decision.

    A good place to start is Article 97(1) and the First Schedule (Form 6) read with Articles 2 and 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore……..to better understand about the TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Source TR Emeritus :Quote -”Many people asked about if Mdm is paid $100M, they were served POFMA. So is it $99M or $89M or $99.9M or 8.9M? During the GE, the 10M population statistics was raised by many politicians and they were condemned for falsehoods and even insulted on. So now the GE is over, as usual, this 10M question has gone very quiet. No need to explain to the public, wait for the next GE? This is a question that opposition needs to ask in parliament and get this sorted out for public interest.

    One article explained that with the past trend of population growth, we would hit 10M by 2050, thats a reality because it is based on trend. So now the question, what is the plan for Singapore?

    Bukit Brown dug, Tengah gone, most of the forests deforested, lots of reclaiming and digging underground still on-going, surely 6M is not a target, it is definitely more. So will we know the population plan for 2030, 2040 and 2050? We believe there is always plan for everything from IT to population growth. Surely there is a plan and numbers are there, so why the public has to keep guessing and being accused of being bogeyman? We want to make our own plan based on your population plan too. To avoid falsehood and POFMA, would it be better for the government who is responsible for the plan to come out and tell us so that no one is guessing?

    Micheal Sim”Unquote.

    Response : Why never ask Lim Tean,Leong Sze Hian or Terry Xu to find out the answers during the two trials with LHL ? Get it from the horse mouth and nothing will be POFMA ,right ? However,Lim Tean the big sized fellow may not be brave enough to ask during the court session.All his questions in court look pretty mild .The only fellow that may dare to ask may be Leong Sze Hian and that is why,he cannot be brought to testified for his mouth may bring out hard questions .As for Terry Xu,it is just another show on stage .There may be a lot of donations of cotonavirus$$$ to catch after all these stage court show and Lim Tean may be the biggest winner with his big fat million dollar of court fees lawyer charges to all his clients ???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Aiya, Lim Tean missed asking the emperor without clothes by what means the latter had in mind to “FIX” those who criticise or oppose him lah………more important than Ho Ching’s salary. Maybe should have asked the emperor without clothes about Ho Ching’s suitability or otherwise to be appointed as CEO of Temasek Holdings…..

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1