In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
But the question is… were they lying? How we know if they are lying or the Gahmen is being truthful? duh!
Agree. The burden should fall on listeners , and not on people who make the statements. If not it is not good we have a country of defamation suits.
Even if the government won many defamation suits, it is only the courts legally proclaim them opposite of whatever was said but if the general public believe otherwise, there is little consolation in winning the defamation suits.
Besides the present system of laws governing the defamation suits only benefit the minority of rich and powerful which is not good for Singaporeans.
Defamation suits main objective is to prove the allegations was false, not to bankrupt people. The sums should be kept to a minimal since its not about money or else defamation suits might be pointless in long run.
.
I prefer the government need to show proof that it were lies and false besides using reputation, raw power, unable to govern etc to win defamation suits.
Besides saying it were lies, they should say where and how it was lies.
In the end, no point winning suits, most important is what people actually believe.
TT Durai wining defamation suits and bankrupting people who make the statements was the best example. In the end, we all know the people making statements were true but because a more powerful entity beat TT Durai’s to his and government own game.
It means present judicial system is subject to abuse and not accurate and fair at all as TT Durai use his reputation, power and money to win defamation suits against people who spoke the truth.
A real worldclass government will debate openly with opposition politicians to defend its governance and policies. This is the true measure of having self confidence in one’s actions and that there is nothing to hide. An open debate will encourage citizens’ participation as stake holders and is an opportunity for the govt to debunk any claims made by opposition politicians and private citizens. The onus is on the ruling party to initiate an open debate and Singaporeans have yet to see the incumbents taking this first step. Time to take the cue from our Junior college students debating live on national television.
Hiding behind law suits and the judiciary is not the way forward in today’s world, it does not serve to convince the public nor win their respect.
I agreed with open debate….we cannot all depend to our statetimes and news in TV…because I believed they dun show every things especially those things that are not good to our ruling party. Example, wen certain cost increase (eg, PUB, public transport fare) they interview in the our news reporting they only show those ppl saying agreed and not those who disagree with the increment.
Haiz…wat a disappointment!
4) conjob on October 20th, 2008 11.34 am
Yes, why have to resort to hiding the truth and dare not aired on national tele to show the people that you are what you claimed to be, an open government! Not even to mention about our own paliamentary debate between the MPs were all censored and not letting the public knows whats been asked.
this government NEVER tell lies! they just tell HALF-TRUTHS! the MSM takes up the tab from here. so you see, the PAP never tell lies.
Actually… the Gahmen likes to imply Chee is a Psychopath. How come Chee never sue? If he does he sure win money one what. Because you need to prove medically that he is right?
Bring back the jury system and let the people decide in court who is lying.
8) Zefly on October 20th, 2008 1.10 pm
in case you are from another planet – this govt NEVER implies anything. once spoken, it is THE truth!
Chee would be a real psychopath if he had sued back.
Who knows, now the angmo lawfirm volunteered to take up his case and with the IBA and international watchdogs watching closely to see how this case be handled properly in the name of justice.
Singapore shown the world it has such a world class legal system when they able to indict TT durai. 3 long months. No joke man. World class. What a deterrent sentence.
About the IBA 72 page report.
Was it accepted ?
IF not , if the report is flawed or wrongly criticised the system,
was the IBA sued ? If so , where is the article?
If not, why ?
I no no, so i ask ask onlyz. no flame flame huh.
How does one define a lie? Ah.
A lie is anything you says that makes them feel unconfortable.
For debates, I do not think they are willing to have them because most of their policies are flawed and unpopular to begin with. Why would the PAP government invite people to scrutinize their policies on broadcasted debates when they can just shove it down your throat ?
Once they feel uncomfortable with the lie, a defamation suit is their security blanket. MM Lee & PM Lee have waaay tooo much time ..and money.
During GE, the oppsition should be allowed to say what they want. If the gahmen thinks that Singaporeans are mature enough to accept casinos, they should be mature enough to judge whether the opposition are talking sense or not.
18) top of the world on October 20th, 2008 8.21 pm
——————–
Before coming to conclusions :
How does one prove that the people do not know when the opposition is not talking sense?
How does one prove that the people do know when the opposition is talking sense?
Based on whose words?
Can the MSM be generous enough to follow the footsteps of Obama-McCain debate TV shows and invite PAP ministers to debate on National TV ‘live’ with LTK and Sylvia lim and invite People to pose direct questions ?
Like this not sure is it welcomed by the people who may find it interesting given that there has been so many hikes I lost count ?
20) Live TV debate for all HIKES anyone? on October 20th, 2008 10.37 pm
I dun think so they dare to face the public at this time. Not to mention how come the PM nor the MSM appearing to address the chaotic moments of the people here instead of asking the SM to face the music himself.
What you mean by base on what words? Come on, you are old and educated enough to judge yourself. I am sure you don’t need your dad to tell you what make sense and what don’t sense.
PAP’s definition of “lies” is “facts that we don’t like to hear”.
Should a statement of opinion be regarded as defamatory?
“In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame.”
Double speak ? So, is this criticism, opinion, lie or defamation ?
In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame.
How do you define if it is a LIE when the other refuse to speak or HIDE the TRUTH?
How do you define CRITICISM?
When (A) speaks something negative about (B) to (C).
How do you define DEFAMATION?
When one speaks something bad of the other WHO THINKS HE IS FAMOUS.
Why sue? Because… kangaroos sure win, not because they should win