Comments on: Singapore strikes again

By: smallvice585

smallvice585 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:09:26 +0000

This on-line editorial cannot be published in paper form which would be circulated in Singapore. Here is an excerpt from it:
{As for this week’s contempt ruling, the first line of Justice Tay’s decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore justice. “Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the surface,” he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous because they had an “inherent tendency” to “scandalise the court.”} – One Observer (#1)

Since when the Singapore Judiciary become the Thought Police? Freedom is slavery, War is peace, Ignorance is strength.

By: me

me — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:38:39 +0000

sorry the government defines transparency and accountability according to their own dictionary. if they feel its in their interest in being transparent, they would. same for accountability.

if they feel its not in their interest in being transparent and accountable, then they will tell you to move on. in fact they are transparent about how they deal with challenges to their accountability. =)

By: SAD

SAD — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:15:25 +0000

Someone earlier mentioned that it is sad that our judiaciary cannot stand up to scrutiny. That would be a understatement for I believe the government and our leaders cannot stand up to scrutiny. This translates to fear and thus the obsessive drive to supress any form of criticism. Accountability and transparency take on a different meaning here. When these words are mentioned , its for the people, you are accountable for your every words and action. The punishment melted out when you dare is made transparent ,in fact in blaring details by the state media so that silence is maintained.

By: interested

interested — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:30:20 +0000

i agree with ‘me’. they stand up for their principles, rightly or wrongly.
unlike chase manhattan bank (now jp morgan chase) in the eighties, when they buckled and foreclosed the singapore herald.

By: me

me — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:10:21 +0000

”

I think the Wall Street Journal should be grateful to the Singapore government for suing them and Walter Woon should be offered an honourary charimanship of the WSJ when he retires as AG in Singapore. ”

firstly, make sure its honorary. or else, WSJ would probably go bankrupt given his expertise and the consequent high wages he fully deserves.

secondly,WSJ would need to change their name. SWJ. shenton way journal. or PAPJ.

my respect for WSJ has gone up after they lost their “battle”.

By: Tang Li

Tang Li — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:45:28 +0000

By suing the WSJ in a Singapore court, the AG has ensured that the credibility of the WSJ has increased and as such, people who like to read news will actually know where to look – the WSJ.

By: me

me — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:47:37 +0000

they have managed to ‘defeat’ the Judiciary by provoking this lawsuit, and basically reinforced what everyone thinks of our judiciary.

splendid. our judiciary fell for the trap, all for 25k. =)

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:23:46 +0000

11) Ringo Teo H P on November 29th, 2008 10.59 pm

Hi Ringo,
I do agree that not all working in the newspapers are like that but the problem is not the people, its the system that sets the policy for the people working there to follow, so even though some may not agree but still have no choice but to do the monkey see monkey do system of the company they work for.

By: Ringo Teo H P

Ringo Teo H P — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:59:30 +0000

7) tiredsingaporean on November 29th, 2008 5.04 pm
———–

1 TOC guy ever told a group of people that not all working in the newspapers are like that.

I have been wondering what made him so convinced.

For me, I tell myself, never change my impression of it in case I blame myself later on.

By: James

James — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:50:59 +0000

@8
Yes, everyone should be hush-hush and pretend all is right and peaceful and that everyone in Singapore has a high income with no poverty and…

By: logicalman

logicalman — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:33:14 +0000

Your Honour, may I also point out to you that dozens of magazines and ads in the ST offend our standards of decency and modesty daily. These images evoke stronger repulsion than kangaroos and are a moral hazard to our men, young and old. I would most certainly appreciate if you could do the same unto them as you did to WSJ. Thank you

By: interested

interested — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:25:08 +0000

this is preposterous! how can the awsj continue to cast aspersions on our esteemed judiciary after it had ruled they were in contempt! accept it, pay the fine and move on, and don’t say another word about our judiciary or our government for that matter!

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:04:41 +0000

and funny thing our ST can just publish any news that is only benefitial to the elites and on the other hand our elites can just go on suing every other foreign medias that basically publish about the truth to the public and being penalized.

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:13 +0000

wonder what the IBA have to say about this issue!

By: Tew NS

Tew NS — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:55:33 +0000

WSJ can don’t pay the fine, no big deal, why scare of Spore govt, why waste $25000,

By: min

min — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:27:01 +0000

this is a blatant case of rule by law and not rule of law.
i cannot believe the courts in singapore cannot stand up to criticism.
we hold the statue of courts so high up, we forgot about the way our leaders like LHL hold us in contempt. the courts are more interested in throwing people who wear kangaroo t-shirts in jail, fining WSJ than reflecting on the what these people have to say…..

By: Yogi Bear

Yogi Bear — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:04:39 +0000

Please continue to quote freely from Judge Tay’s written decision. Under Singapore’s law, any excerpt is protected by an absolute privilege.

My favorite segment is

“As will be demonstrated shortly, it is not the AG’s case that the publications contained passages or words that expressly scandalise the Singapore judiciary but that they do so by implication….”

It is not unusual for a lady to declare that “ALL MEN ARE IDIOTS”, especially in a heated argument. So since Judge Tay is a man, therefore…

By: one observer

one observer — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:43:54 +0000

It sure will attracts another law suit in Singapore.

But peoples’ eyes are open. If one cannot openly say something is wrong, it does not imply that thing is right.

WSJ please continue what you have been doing for the sake of the gagged and silented Singaporeans:
” [WSJ] continue to express our views about politics, the courts and other subjects that we think our readers should know about. And we’ll let readers decide what to make of the judiciary in Singapore.”