Thank you to those who came to support me today in my first day of trial.
I am still in the witness stand and under cross-examination by NUS' lawyer (started today and to be continued tomorrow), so I cannot share with you what was I cross-examined on.
Instead, I will share with you a question that I was researching on in the internet.
What is the Court’s position regarding the disclosure of documents to the public?
I am interested in this question and I found this article from the internet: “High Court Clarifies Scope of Riddick Principle in Singapore: Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim  2 SLR 578” by Gerald Leong.
The article reads in part as follows:
“If a document is disclosed during discovery, it is subject to an implied undertaking not to be used for a collateral purpose. This is known as the Riddick principle. However, does the Riddick principle still apply if the said document has been used in open court? The Singapore High Court recently had a chance to consider this for the first time in Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim  2 SLR 578.
Position in Singapore
Chan J decided to adopt the minority’s approach, namely that the Riddick principle no longer applies to a document that has been used in open court, for three reasons. The first reason is that such a position accords appropriate weight to the principle of open justice in the balancing exercise. …
… Chan J was aware that there may be difficulty in deciding when a document has become public knowledge in some cases, but reasoned that a document that has been used, read or referred to in open court would have become public knowledge (at ).”
(Citation: "High Court Clarifies Scope of Riddick Principle in Singapore: Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim  2 SLR 578", Singapore Law Blog (17 April 2015) (http://www.singaporelawblog.sg/blog/article/105)