From Siew Kum Hong’s blog:
The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.
I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Read the full article here.
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
Hi #103) dsims,
Precisely my point. Many have already passed judgment and have taken one side and proclaim that one side as truth – which is not yet proven – neither has it been proven that those accusing him are not speaking the truth – even as it seem so far-fetch to believe they have any merit in their accusations.
Whoever the liar, whoever is speaking the truth – the adverse effect in this instance is going to affect the bystanders – you and me – the netizens.
HI Curious,
I merely expressed my opinion of what would qualify as crossing Siew Kum Hong’s line given that he has demonstrated an admirable degree of tolerance over contrary opinions of his actions. Libel suit follows under Common Law.
In light of your words, I refine my statement to:
I am inclined to believe if anyone were to make new allegations that Siew Kum Hong broke any statutory or regulatory law, he would file a police report.
Gemami
I am confused by your arguments.
Who has said that those who have made the allegations are guilty of criminal defamation yet?We are talking about whether SKH is right to make a police report. However these person(s) have made a serious charge – that SKH committed a criminal act. if they are hauled up before the law, they can either prove what they are saying is true or face the consequences. My view is that this goes beyond the boundaries of normal interest sniping. Fact is, this allegation has nothing to do with the ongoing controversies regarding Aware and homosexuality. This isn’t expressing any view or comment – this is stating an alleged fact.
Will this result in internet regulation? For once Curious managed to say something sensible in spite of himself. How do you regulate the internet? And if indeed it is possible, it may not be a bad thing if it results in posters not being to defame and slander as they like without basis. spiteful allegations that have absolutely no
#98 Gemami
BTW rape is not a capital offence, yet. Can’t remember the exact penalties (Hey Counsel Curious, go wiki it up, will u?) but certainly it’s not a hanging offence yet. :-)
Correction.
Will this result in internet regulation? For once Curious managed to say something sensible in spite of himself. How do you regulate the internet? And if indeed it is possible, it may not be a bad thing if it results in posters not being to defame and slander as they like without basis. Spiteful allegations that have no basis in fact are better kept out.
Regulating internet will be like MAS regulating the banks selling financial products.
101) gemami,
I think the ‘side’ we (or at least I) am on, is that Siew is right to get the Police involved. I have not judged anyone, … especially when I can’t even be bothered to visit the Reach form (where I assumed the allegations were made?)
On the issue of Internet regulation as a result of this:
First, face it, there is never going to be total freedom. There only ever will be conditional freedom.
second, there is a definite upside to this. And that is the definition of the OB markers. I really really hate it when Law is as vague as ours, when everything seem to depend on one man (judge). If OB markers are established, at least we know how far we can go, how much we can say, etc.
Hi HT,
Nice try, but I suggest you go back to my very first post here and see that I have been making the same point over and over again, which is: I have no quarrel with what Mr Siew is doing – and – my only worry is the impact it is going to have in cyberspace – in terms of regulation.
The rest of the the arguments have been put there by those attempting to make a case to support their own arguments against my writings.
None have so far taken the trouble to engage me on my point. I do not even know why they keep harping on those points which I have never been against anyway – that Mr Siew is only exercising his right as a citizen to pursue a perceived injustice.
Hi Donaldson,
You see, Donaldson, by your admission, there is an underlying motive to why you are influenced into taking side with Mr Siew – his reappointment as NMP. If only we can put sentimentalities aside and see the issue as it is – an issue – then perhaps your perception of it might be different. Anyway, it’s good for you to share your position with us so that we can understand why people take the sides they take. I respect that and I am appreciative of such sharing.
Perhaps you are right that I am against censorship. I have people calling me all sorts of names, from being a prostitute to a dog to other names that are not printable here. I respect such comments too because I can then see the intensity of such writings. It helps me understand feelings which otherwise would not have been seen with moderate writings. There are other avenues to go after these people should the need arise – without giving the authorities the opportunity to clamp things down if they want to. So in the respect, I think we are agreed to disagreeing.
Pushing boundaries. Aren’t the enemies of Mr Siew pushing boundaries too? Why then is it alright for the pink dotters to push boundaries and not so for these enemies of Mr Siew? Does it not come back down to our perception that Mr Siew has already been wronged – even before a trial has taken place?
Maybe I admit that I should stand corrected that Mr Siew is not responsible for the potential reversal of internet regulation but surely he is playing the part in hastening it.
I have to go for a meeting now. Catch up tomorrow.
108) gemami on May 20th, 2009 4.31 pm
Aiyo Gemami, so 60s, doing the twist. Actually you made two points.
You first claimed that SKH is only reaping what he has sowed – because he took a position on the controversy and (in a later post) that he met with a couple of foreigners, therefore he should not complain when posters claim that he has committed a criminal offence in accepting political donations from foreigners. As said to you by several posters, you are blaming the victim.
I took issue with you when you said that SKH should have anticipated the consequences. This allegation has nothing to do with the issues. And if meeting with foreigners automatically means them giving you money, our ambassadors and tour guides must be very rich.
You then claim that this may affect internet freedom. Well, as said, it is arguable in itself whether the internet can be regulated. It should also be noted very clearly that the allegation is that SKH has committed a CRIMINAL OFFENCE for which he could be charged in court. Its not just your usual abuse – “you bigot, you gay-lover..etc” which I agree should be laughed off.
I agree with the other posters who say that internet freedom as with all freedoms cannot be unbounded. I dislike Derek Hong but if I saw him walking with a woman (yes, dressed provocatively) I surely cannot post that he has raped a woman unless I have proof. Absolute internet freedom? There is a line which the legislature has drawn and we must ensure that our nation does not cross that line (now where have I heard that before?). Good old Derek himself would surely approve of this moral line.
Dear Gemami,
Calm down my friend :). Very interesting prognosis you have got my friend. IMHO, there are always two sides to a coin in any arguments or discourses. There can never be absolute rights or wrongs. It is purely a different perspective from an individual (there is, if we want to view ourselves as matured, civilized, rational thinking concerned citizenry). Any individual engaged in public discourse on any matters will be viewed as more credible if opinion(s) put forth is/(are) substantiated with “undoubting” facts. The credibility of such facts again is largely dependent on an individual’s perspective. Any individual will always have the undeniable RIGHTS to rebut or chill out. It’s CHOICE.
The point you have made on, I rephrased: ” I am worried on the Regulation that the government may impose on the Internet ~ thereby setting our freedom of expression in cyberland days numbered”, I will take on a different perspective (if I may) in one simple crude statement: “There is nothing anyone of us can do about it if the government so choose to legislate the internet”. Think about it, who is there to stop them? Yes, we can rant, we can shout, we can protest at HLP, will that change a thing? I should think not, my friend. However, it will be very interesting to see if the government so choose to regulate the freedom of expression in the cyberland because of SKH’s police report on cybernet abuse.
Looking from a different perspective, whether SKH expect public scrutiny or whatever because of his out-spoken personalities and stands on controversial subject matters has no bearings to his personal RIGHTS to make the decision to file a police report. It is equally right to say that it is any one individual’s RIGHTS to express their views in whatever form and manner as long as the owner of the “Blog Site” allows it. We cannot assume that people who choose to engage in cyberspace discourse understand that “Freedom” of anything comes with societal responsibility however common sense etiquette you might think that is. You will always see derogatory, discriminating, prejudicial even racist remarks in any nation who practices freedom of speech & expression. The opposite is true too. This to me is practically HUMAN NATURE.
Cheers!
Observer (SG-HK)
HI Gemami,
There is no issue of internet deregulation at all. In fact, everybody is entitled to pushing boundaries. There are risks and rewards in pushing boundaries, so the each side has to pray they succeed or else they will face rejection, prosecution, or worst – persecution! You are harping on this non-issue because you abhor censorship. The only sure way to avoid censorship is to post comments on a website you already owned. But of course this means you might not have the reader volume to propagate your views but that is the trade-off you must accept. Solo Bear’s blog is a good example of that but that blog is full of misguided posts.
Certainly amusing that it is ok to use words like “underlying arrogance” to criticise others through their blogs but then when attacked back by others, they cry foul and resort to non-rebuttal means. Will this personal opinion be termed as “I view it as defamatory and criminal” too? Is this a form of “Shut up and sit down!”?
112) Observer (SG-HK) on May 20th, 2009 6.34 pm
I agreed. I would like to add. Freedom of speech exist differently in different countries. Usually it goes through a long battling process between the regulator and the cuber users and it is still possible in many countries that it is still being shaped-up at this very moment. Many areas affect the shaping of Freedom of speech… society tolerance, traditions, moral values, religions, schools…. etc.
Every government (including US) would stamped their limitations according to their benefits. There is actually no country in the world where there are 100% freedom of speech, be it in real life or cyberspace, there bound to be limitations set in place.
So, if we based our Freedom in cyberspace on other countries, we can argued till TOC is out of web space, we cannot come to a conclusion. I do believe that Singapore through the AWARE, CSE and Mr Siew cases, we are defining that limitations and it is inevitably that the regulator will map out their tolerance level and spell out the limitations for cyberspace to exist.
Another point for us to think about. True cyberspace freedom is not about the freedom of using anonymous identity, it is the FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUT OR WRITE ABOUT ISSUES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION OR FEELINGS WITHOUT BEING MARKED OR SINGLED OUT, however it does not take away the responsibilities that individual has to bear for any claims that he/she made. That means I can write about any issues based on my feelings and perception and that does not get me into trouble with the authority or any organisation but the moment I make any claims that an event happened or of a criminal offense, I will have to provide the source of my information or proofs.
TO ME, usage of anonymous identity in cyberspace is not freedom of speech, it is irresponsibility sidekick of the freedom of speech. I encourage everyone to use real name if you dare.
Dear HT,
The two points you attribute to being mine – the first one, yes. I have said that Mr Siew is reaping what he had sown and I am standing by this unless you can convince me that the disparaging accusations have absolutely nothing to do with his involvement in the Aware saga and his stand on penal code 377A.
The second point did not come from me. It is part of the two points Mr Siew is pursuing which he has deemed to carry criminal connotations. I repeated the point to bring across my point that no one can stop another from putting one and one to make two – by what they see, hear or assume even. So there is no 60s twisting but more like the 70s free-sprirtedness on your part for reading my point so carelessly.
I had hoped that internet forums be unbounded by regulations but I have also (already) come to the realisation that this is not possible. Since this is the case, where then do we draw the boundaries? As long as someone says something nasty, or does it depend on your social position or does it have to be dependent upon the authorities to draw these lines and boundaries?
These are my questions and I am happy that we are finally coming together to discuss this – after more than a hundred posts.
Many have spoken about this boundary, this line and had given their own views on where and how this line must be drawn, fine – but suppose everyone takes the course of action that Mr Siew has taken – then – there can only be one outcome – it will become a line that is closer and closer to our side and soon there will be no space left for us to even stand on.
106) HT on May 20th, 2009 4.01 pm
//For once Curious managed to say something sensible in spite of himself. //
Must be due to the phytoalexin in the resveratrol of the sour ‘Grapes of Wrath” you have been sending me ! Like Zefly , you are also an enigma wrapped round a riddle in a paradoxical maze of conundrums. And that is a compliment.
Dear Observer (SG-HK),
Thank you for sharing your views. I personally feel that yours are the most balanced and level-headed comments from anyone thus far.
Indeed it will be interesting to see if the government would choose to regulate the freedom of expression in the cyberland because of SKH’s police report on cybernet abuse.
And then there is the question of being anonymous. Tell me, if all the comments I made here carries a different name, say, Donald Tsang – will it make a difference?
107) Donaldson Tan on May 20th, 2009 4.22 pm
//Regulating internet will be like MAS regulating the banks selling financial products.//
I think it’s excruciatingly more complicated than that. It’s more like sorting out where the head starts and the butt ends in a 64 gallon can of worms.
115) Joel Low on May 20th, 2009 7.57 pm
//True cyberspace freedom is not about the freedom of using anonymous identity, it is the FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUT OR WRITE ABOUT ISSUES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION OR FEELINGS WITHOUT BEING MARKED OR SINGLED OUT//
Unless you have changed your raison d’etre I think all the above are just nice sound bytes.
I recall bitterly that you recently excoriated me by saying ” If you have the guts to rebuttal (sic) everyone who disagree (sic) with you and make them look like a fool, HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT YOUR STAND. You are a fundamentalist… a dangerous one. STOP DENYING.”
Why SINGLE me out if, as you rightly say, I have the “FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUT OR WRITE ABOUT ISSUES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION OR FEELINGS WITHOUT BEING MARKED OR SINGLED OUT”?
And to add insult to injury I am not even a fundamentalist by your standard, much less a dangerous one by any reasonable bystander’s standard.
Dear Joel,
Thanks for your concurrence. Appreciate it. There is no denial that the progress of ABSOLUTE Freedom of Speech and Expression is still in the making (including and not limiting to the good old king of democracy United States of America). It may even be true if I assume this can never happen. I think there will never be an ending to private/public discourses with counter views, not even after all of us here pass on (with one possible exception ~ the end of life on planet earth).
I understand your frustrations and read your messages perfectly clear whether in this subject matter or others in this site recently. Your passionate defense and counter views on those controversial issues are amicable albeit emotions do get to you. That is normal and it is a good gauge that you come across as a compassionate person (based on the writings). As I have said (many times now since I started commenting in TOC months ago), it is indeed an individual’s perspective and one always have their RIGHTS to rebut or chill-out. You are absolutely right on when you said this:
“FREEDOM TO SPEAK OUT OR WRITE ABOUT ISSUES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION OR FEELINGS WITHOUT BEING MARKED OR SINGLED OUT”
however, I will have to disagree on your point of anonymity. How do you verify “REAL IDENTITY” over “Pen name”? Superficially you can. Also granted that there are other mechanism to do just that, however, there are other implications such as assurance that identity of a person do not get abuse for other purpose apart from public discourses…and many others that we currently do not know. It will also put on a heavy burden on Blog Site owners who may just want to have a platform to invite concerned citizenry participation on community, societal or global current affair issues? It is different from having to provide true identity that concern transaction(s) of two parties that truly has legal (by governing rules) implications (just an example).
Again we can go on and on even on this subject matter and there will always be two sides of the story. Isn’t it? That’s the beauty of social civilized discourse. Personally, I accept views from any individual as is. However, it is up to me to decipher these views and I certainly take ownership of my perspective but that does not mean I expect other people to do the same simply because it is any adult (again by law) individual’s responsibility and choice.
Cheers to you Joel! Do not feel discourage. It’s parts and parcels of reality in life.
Observer (SG-HK)
Gemami, I also cannot to follow your logic.
On one hand you agree with SKH in that his actions are justified: “I fully agree that such baseless attacks on one’s character is utterly disgraceful and must be challenged to prove that such allegations are true, and if not, a legal course of justice must be brought to bear on those who make these allegations.”
On the other: “He might not have asked for, been offered or accepted any sort of funding but he cannot blame people for putting one and one together to get two…”
1) So who exactly are these “people” that “he cannot blame”?
“…putting one and one together to get two…”
2) Are you suggesting these “people” got it right?
“He [Siew] makes a police report without considering the adverse effect it might have on internet regulation.”
3) So he should “consider the adverse effect it might have on internet regulation” and NOT make a police report?
“Freedom of expression, even on the internet, does not constitute a license to defame. We are free to make comments and express our opinions, but it is wrong to make unfounded allegations of fact that defame a person’s character. These allegations against Mr Siew have clearly crossed the line. The culprits should be punished. Those who fight for freedom of expression should also fight against its abuse.”
4) So now he SHOULD make a police report?
“…because of the side he had taken, he had opened himself to unwarranted attacks.”
5) How are the “unwarranted attacks” conditioned on the side he took on the AWARE saga? What exactly do you mean by “unwarranted” anyway? Unneccessary or baseless?
“…because he has lodge a police report, there is a danger that internet regulation will be considered by the authorities.”
Fine. It could very well be that the authorities might take this as a case study to regulate the internet. But how you can be so certain of sheer speculation is quite intriguing (“I am sure the authorities will exact all it can from it to regulate the internet.”)
If you are making an argument that the authorities will move into areas beyond libel and impede freedom of expression, shouldn’t blame fall squarely on the authorities?
I am pretty sure I am not alone in thinking that you are making all kinds of unwarranted (baseless) exceptions against SKH.
Hi Gemami,
You still don’t get my point on boundary pushing – it is a double-edged sword. There are risks and rewards in doing this and you better pray you are on the winning side or else you will face rejection, condemnation, prosecution or worst case of all – persecution. Regardless of the outcome, so be it. This is the realism of political competition that we all must accept. It is naive to expect all political actors to play clean.
To Rina,
Since when did our government rule by populist opinions? If you surveyed the people on the streets, how many would agree to take wage cuts willingly to help the employers manage their businesses better? On many issues, the government will insist on implementing unpopular policies because it felt that it was the right thing to do. Truth and Justice have nothing to do with popular opinions!
To Gemami on May 18th,2009
” I fully agree that such baseless attacks on one’s character is utterly disgraceful and must be challenged to prove that such allegations are true, and if not, a legal course of justice must be brought to bear on those who make these allegations.”
“When one’s integrity comes under scrutiny, nothing you say will stand up to credibility in the eyes of the observing public. It becomes your words against theirs”
1)These are very reasons why Siew wanted to make a police report. He is letting the court decide who are telling the truth and who are telling lies.
2)When Josie Lau and his team seized the leadership of AWARE, there were speculations that they knew each other beforehand and had an anti-homosexual agenda. If these allegations were false, they copuld also bring the speculators to court. Did they dare to refute those allegations in a court of law?
115) gemami on May 20th, 2009 8.05 pm
Yes, its true that this particular attack on SKH was a consequence of his position in the Aware saga and the continuing arguments on homosexuality. But as said, I disagree that SKH should have anticipated this, reaping what he sowed etc. The allegation made has nothing to do with the controversy. I reiterate my view that if anyone were to attack him for his position and abuse him or call him names, that’s the usual internet chatter. Being anti-gay or pro-gay is not criminal (well, not yet anyway). But for a politician to accept foreign funding, that’s serious sh*t. It is a very, very serious allegation – that he has committed a criminal offence and implying that he is treasonous. And what has that got to do with his position on Aware or homosexuality?
With respect to boundaries, I don’t presume to know exactly where to draw the line but this allegation certainly, imho, has crossed that line, way beyond any gray area.
116) Curious on May 20th, 2009 8.15 pm
Uh…thanks…and its been interesting and fun er…discussing with you, too.
I have a question which no one seems to have raised as yet. It is this : what is the likelihood that the police will be able to track down the anonymous posters of the allegedly defamatory comments ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume that it will not be easy (if not impossible) to track down the culprits given that the comments were made anonymously. In other words, there is a possibility that there will be no outcome to the investigation, as there will be no one to prosecute.
If so, the making of the police report would only have the following effect :
(i) A very public declaration of innocence, and
(ii) Giving opponents a scare, with the further possibility that they would be more circumspect when making future comments against NMP Siew.
I assume that NMP Siew is aware of this possible outcome, and may have intended it.
It is of course perfectly within NMP Siew’s rights to lodge a police report. However, on the assumption that what I have said above is correct (or at least reasonably possible), I have the following questions to everyone here :
1. Does the symbolic / political value in the making of the police report (rather than real value in establishing innocence / guilt or pinpointing culprits), change your opinion of NMP Siew ?
2. If there is no outcome to the police investigation (which is what I predict, though I may well be wrong), what would your opinion be -
(i) that the allegations are entirely baseless ? OR
(ii) that since we have no basis to say whether the allegations were true or false, the allegations against NMP Siew are inconclusive ?
In the circumstances, the person who made the allegations against NMP Siew may simply wish to step out and prove that his allegations are not defamatory using whatever damning information he can produce (and be prepared to face the consequences if what he claims is defamatory under criminal or civil law).
Turning to comment #125 – it would be pointless for Josie Lau to take civil action for defamation because, even if the comments made against Josie Lau were untrue, it is very likely that the persons who made those comments would be able to successfully argue fair comment, ie. opinion that any person could successfully hold based on the facts known at that time. Given that the majority of the exco members at that time were from the same church, it would be reasonable for anyone to speculate that they knew each other beforehand. However, please bear in mind that what is fair comment is not necessarily true.
Dear slim,
To answer all your questions, I will have to revisit those posts where I made those comments in answer to questions and views expressed by posters. The quotes you picked out are to be seen in the context of the questions being asked and views expressed. For example, when I said “you cannot blame people for …” it must be seen that the focus here is not the people but the reason why the blame cannot stand to scrutiny because it is unavoidable that humans have a tendency to put one and one to get two.
So to me, what you have pulled out are nothing more than just a vain attempt to nitpick because if you had followed my arguments very closely, you would have realised that my argument is based on my suggestion that Mr Siew takes a step back to see why all this is happening around him (see post #8 or #9 or thereabout as I have other posts under moderation there).
My case is a very simple one, complicated by the numerous assertions or presumptions that I am anti-Siew. This is the consequence of the side I had taken during the Aware saga and my open opinion of the level of regard I have for Mr Siew. It is unavoidable that supporters of Mr Siew will see me in an ‘anti-Siew’ light. Fine with me – except that, in truth, I am not anti-Siew, and the Aware saga has no bearing on my opinions expressed here.
I would suggest readers and posters stand on neutral ground and see the situation for what it is, just like Observer (SK-HK) has been able to do.
I have never said that the police report by Mr Siew is wrong. It is the people who have been replying to my comments who suggested that this is my position. It is not. I only questioned the wisdom of making such a report because as a person with his high stature, and a blogger for that matter, he has to weigh the consequence of his actions before acting on them. On the one hand, Mr Siew implicated anonymous posters as cowards and not worthy of respect, but on the other hand, he accords them so much respect as to go after them for the rubbish they have uttered. Show me the balance.
I further suggested that since a police report had already being made we should let the authorities take the necessary actions and allow them the time to investigate and then come to their conclusion on whether there is a criminal act being committed here. In response to such a suggestion, posters have been bombarding me that the verdict is a foregone conclusion and that they are the jury that matters. We are seeing the institution of a Public Square Court where the defendants are already judged guilty even before the administers of justice have completed their investigations.
And Donaldson, I thank you again for being so patient with this ignorant fool. Pushing boundary is indeed a double-edged sword. However, I would like to stress that there are people who are not afraid to be on the losing side, as long as the principle and the philosophy that make up the person that he is, is kept intact and that he can face himself in the mirror at the end of each day.
Let us take Mr Siew’s case as an example. Some may not agree, but it is quite clear that he had been pushing boundaries during his term in office as an NMP. Some of those boundaries we are happy he is pushing but there are some that some quarters are not happy with. It is here that he has lost and is now being persecuted for them. It’s a cause and effect equation.
Perhaps your last sentence is more apt when applied to Mr Siew: “ It is naive to expect all political actors to play clean“.
Hi #129) Chained,
You are barking up the wrong tree. I did not say the police report is wrong.
127) M on May 21st, 2009 2.04 am
Everything on the Internet leaves a trace. The only anonymity one has, is the difficulty in tracing. The more difficult, the less likely it will be done.
If you want, you can try barking up LKY’s tree, and see if you get persecuted.
Hi HT,
“I disagree that SKH should have anticipated this, reaping what he sowed etc. The allegation made has nothing to do with the controversy.” : HT.
Is this your true sentiment or are you just saying it for the sake of argument? If it is your true sentiment then I am going to look at you differently from now on. Mr Siew is a public figure. He knows his words and actions carry repercussions, whether good or bad, depending on the perceptions of his audience. You are telling me he did not anticipate this?
I think Mr Siew would be the first to laugh off your statement because I am sure he knows fully well that the day he stepped into the NMP post, his life will never be the same again. Public scrutiny will become closer and every word uttered by him and every action carried out by him and everything he stands for will all come under very close scrutiny. If he did not anticipate this, then there is nothing more I can say except that each of you go draw your own conclusions.
Hey someone curious mentioned my name! I’m getting popular! woot!
My first time commenting.
It is Mr Siew’s absolute right to go to the police in this incident. His name has been slandered and he wants his accusers to face the music. Mr Siew has shown himself to be a good man, who will stand by and fight for his believes.
That said, I cannot help but feel uneasy the similarities in how our public figures respond to adverse rumours and accusations. It is not Siew’s fault, we are all moldered in the same environment. Our litigeousness has unfortunately become a mark of our politics.
What’s done is done. But I would appeal to all public figures and leaders in future. Think hard before going to the police. Silencing opponents only makes us poorer in the long run. There is a saying, look at the root of the problem, not the messenger.
Regards.
Gemami #128,
It is precisely because I have read closely and still failed to follow your arguments that I questioned your extremely loose logic and rationale. And no, I haven’t taken anything out of context.
One and one DOES get two. Hence my query, who are these “people” (according to you: humans) who tend (your term) to get it (a possible baseless accusation) right?
It might well be an awkward expression on your part that fails to result in a meeting of the minds. You are not able or unwilling to clarify further, so fine. I can live with being called a nitpicker here.
Besides that, I see three main arguments:
A) You explicitly endorse SKH’s actions but then you go on, in a convoluted manner, that he shouldn’t have acted so i.e. he should consider how “his blame cannot stand to scrutiny”. How you know he didn’t consider so, is a mystery. The bearing that such a consideration should have is yet another mystery.
B) Again, couched as a (suggestive) suggestion, you suggested that if the authorities run away with SKH’s case, it is, inexplicably, on his head not the authorities’. This has a further effect of disparaging his actions which you contradictorily endorse. In this “argument”, you claim the gift of prophecy.
C) Hardly an argument, your an attack on a strawman:
“Finally, you save your last breath of attacks on anonymous Netizens to include those who have contributed to online discourses with their well-researched and quality postings, in one fell sweep – as cowards.”
He didn’t criticize anonymous Netizens in any “fell swoop”
SKH: “…I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet.”
His criticism is leveled and limited to at those who character-assassinate, NOT all anonymous netizens. Talk about taking things out of context.
Hi #111) lobo76 on May 20th, 2009 4.27 pm,
Sorry I missed your post. I guessed it must have been under moderation earlier.
Good point your brought up and I too hope that Mr Siew will find a case against that portal for hosting those comments and bring the owners of that blog to justice – Lim Hwee Hua no less.
About the ‘upside’ – I wonder if you can even call it an ‘upside’ when what you are essentially saying is that we ought to be nannied because we are not certain where the ob markers are. Perhaps is a Singaporean thing and I will not find fault with you over your view on this.
Other than this, I question if we are pushing boundaries so that we can eventually see some sort of ob markers. Strange, this one.
On the other issue of ‘total freedom’ to express views – I agree that we will never have total freedom; but my question remains unanswered. See #119) gemami on May 20th, 2009 8.05 pm + #122) gemami on May 20th, 2009 8.22 pm + #133) gemami on May 21st, 2009 8.30 am.
132) gemami on May 21st, 2009 9.25 am
Hi. Indeed that is my true sentiment. As I have said, this allegation has nothing to do with the controversy. I have said this many times, if the comments were made pertaining to the controversy, it can arguably be fair comment, even to the point of abuse.
Don’t you get it? This allegation has nothing to do whatsoever with the controversy. Just because SKH or anyone is a public figure, it surely cannot follow that he or she should expect that someone comes along and alleges that he or she is a criminal for something that is totally out of context with the issue of the day, unless of course the alleger has facts to back it up. That is way out of left field. Your argument that as figures of public scrutiny should expect allegations that they are criminals as par for the course is illogical.
You also keep saying that we have judged the maker of the comment. I really don’t understand what you are talking about. The person(s) have said that SVH accepted foreign political donations. If this is correct, SKH has committed a criminal offence. As a matter of law, such statements in themselves are defamatory per se unless the maker of such statements can prove that they are true. If charged (by the police) or sued (by SKH) the onus is on the maker(s) to prove that the comments are true. It is not for the police or SKH to prove that they are false. So the maker(s) of such posts either have to prove it or they are guilty. Can u understand that?
Hi Henry Teo,
I disagree with your comments on shooting the messenger.
It is such a common tactic in politics. Siew Kum Hong was shot down as the messenger for the AWARE Old Guards and the Repeal of Section 377A. But he stood up and continued his political life. Even litigation and bankruptcy didn’t silence JBJ & CSJ.
If any person don’t want to be shot down as a messenger, don’t participate in politics at all. It is the risk he/she must accept and not whine about it. The onus has and always been on the individual to stand up for his/her position. In fact, Siew Kum Hong’s anonymous critics should learn from him that they should not only stand up to public scrutiny, but also investigation by the authorities.
Hi Gemami,
If you accept that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, why are you still against Siew Kum Hong making a police report? Prior to Siew Kum Hong’s police report, censorship is already here in the internet. Censorship will never disappear from public life and the internet.
Hi slim,
I thank you for taking an interest in my comments and for taking the time to try and understand them. And, I think your effort deserves some clarifications from me. Do bear in mind that I may have to push the 500-word boundary imposed by TOC>.
Firstly, one plus one equals two. Generally no one will quarrel with this. An apple and an apple makes two. An apple and an orange makes two fruits. However, an apple and an orange do not make two apples nor does it make two oranges. Now, do you see why my logic becomes so illogical to you? Because you are only looking at the narrow definition of one plus one.
Next. You deserve an apology from me for calling you a nitpicker – I am sorry and I retract my comment.
Third, about “…the people who tend to get it right“. My comments have been targeted at both camps. Those who support Mr Siew and who cling on to every word that comes out from his mouth as the sovereign truth, and those who have been alleged to have uttered the defamatory words. I have asked while making those comments, whether we know for sure that the anonymous accusers may not have any evidence to support their accusations? We are concluding that they have none. On the other hand, we are so sure that Mr Siew is not guilty as accused – all because he says so, and, because we think we know him well enough to discern that these are lies. Let me be clear here that I have not taken any sides nor have I insinuated that Mr Siew is wrong and his accusers are right and vice versa.
Fourth, with this scenario painted here, I then questioned whether the outcome of such an investigation – initiated by Mr Siew – would have an adverse impact on online regulation. Some took offence when I implied, while questioning whether Mr Siew had thought this through before his police report was made, and that there is a potential for more stringent regulations regulating the internet, and this can be attributed to Mr Siew’s police report and its subsequent consequence. Again I made no accusations but simply asked a gentle question, while attributing such clampdown by the authorities to the course of action he is pursuing here.
About ‘anonymous netizens’. I admit I might have been overly excited and jumped the gun too fast and I stand corrected. After re-reading the comments by Mr Siew, I admit that I might have been too extreme in my interpretation and I thank you and Donaldson for pointing this out to me.
Hi HT,
The connection is an intrinsic one. The underlying range of reasons could be from one of mischief, to one that is purposely crafted to assassinate the character, or, could even be truth. The connecting point is the motive to just get back at him for his involvement in divisive issues that have offended these people.
I said you people have already judged that the accusers are guilty because the accusations are criminal in nature. You guys are agreed that IT IS criminal – and that there is nothing else to pursue toward this end. “IT IS FACT! THE WORDS ARE DEFAMATORY, LIBELOUS and CRIMINAL!” this is the common refrain. I agree that the words uttered are defamatory, libellous and criminal. So what is my problem you ask?
My problem is this. What would you say if these accusers are brought to court and they are able to support their accusations with proofs? You see, you guys have been over your heads that Mr Siew is innocent. What if the innocent ones are those accusing him of those two things? Can this be a possibility?
So you see, while the authorities are investigating, we should not even be discussing Mr Siew and the police action he is seeking but the resulting impact his actions will lead to in terms of internet regulation.
Hi Donaldson,
I am not against Mr Siew making the police report. I am saying that such a report will bring about internet regulation that may hinder, hamper and curtail our freedom to express our thoughts, views and sentiments on issues of the day.
I am overjoyed that Mr Siew has made the police report against the PAP portal, Reach, and I am hoping that the police investigations that go into it is a fair and just one, and that the same investigations will bring about the course of justice that meets the crime, and, that the perpetrators of the crime and their partners, namely, the Reach portal that allowed these comments to be posted, and the overseeing authority of the portal, headed by none other than Lim Hwee Hua, be all brought to bear the consequence of such reckless online behaviour. There. I said it loud and clear.
But until such time, we have to give these accusers time to show themselves, to explain themselves, to show proof and to back up their accusations, if not in a public forum space, then through the official court of justice.
Now to my point. Do you not see that should such justice be served against a PAP-run portal, the underlying impact that encompasses will surely reach other blogs that are not implicated in this situation. You and I, and TOC and all the other blogs, bloggers at large, blogging at large, blog-hosts at large, will all be affected by any decisions that may come out of the authorities in their effort to correct this wrong.
Am I the only one who is paranoid or is everyone else so blind as not to see that there is a distinct possibility that this might happen. Fine if it doesn’t. Delighted even. But if it happens, then who can we attribute the clampdown to? Maybe not Mr Siew in totality but he definitely is a player in this – should this clampdown becomes a reality. The only guilt I am going to acknowledge is that perhaps I am overly paranoid.
137)Gemami,
“Other than this, I question if we are pushing boundaries so that we can eventually see some sort of ob markers. Strange, this one.”
It’s more like a side effect, since Siew has already gotten the police involved.
The series of articles on Operation Spectrum should bring this into better perspective. The powers tat be have shown a wiliness to exercise their muscle, AND create environment to which to do so. Case in point, the Public Order Law, and the Media Law.
Because of this, (at least for me) I would like to find out where the boundaries lay.
REACH is a government portal, not a PAP portal. Click here for the PAP Portal. Internet forums will be flooded with all kinds of messages – some good, some bad, some libel. It seems you have never operate an internet forum website before.
I assure you that no internet forum moderator puts every message into the moderation queue automatically. In fact, many moderators would be clueless of what is being posted until they actually read them. The standard internet forum moderation policy is one that allows every post to get through unless it has been flagged down.
138) sllim on May 21st, 2009 11.24 am
//One and one DOES get two.//
I think you need to qualify specifically what is it you are adding as the result may surprise you.
Sure, in simple maths 1+1 = 2 but this orthodoxy of yours don’t apply in a binary or base 2 system because in that system 1+1=10.
In quantum physics 1 matter + 1 anti-matter = 0 matter (only pure energy).
And whimsically , if you add a hetero male rabbit and a hetero female rabbit in a field and come back next year you could end up with maybe 100 rabbits, not 2.
Don’t take things at face value is the best policy as things may not be as what one perceives them to be.
For example, English muffins weren’t invented in England nor French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbread, which is not sweet at all, is a meat dish.
Hi lobo76,
I can understand your position and I do see your point in wanting a clear set of ob markers, but I am just the opposite of you.
Thanks also for the recommendation. I have been wanting to follow the articles there but have been kept busy here, as well as work. Will try to follow when I can.
Thanks again.
Curious #144,
“Orthodoxy”? I can almost weep with pride at what I am definitely taking as a compliment from you.
Seriously, I just wanted to clarify how Gemami is using that expression. That’s all.
Gemami #139,
No worries about being wordy. I am too.
On “one plus one equals two”: Apples, binary thingamajigs, oranges, Quantum Theory aside, in context:
“He might not have asked for, been offered or accepted any sort of funding but he cannot blame people for putting one and one together to get two, just like the AWARE saga, when people were putting Christianity and Christianity together to get anti-homosexuality, before anyone could even figure out who the new faces were. So now the tables are turned and he is fuming. It’s time to take a leaf from Josie on how to conduct oneself under such scrutiny.”
I am sorry if this compounds the confusion. But was the expression you were reaching for “putting two and two together”? If not, what exactly were you driving at? It’s clear that you derived some sort of correspondence between the two situations but besides “putting one and one together to get two”, it is not clear how. I am not being deliberately obtuse. Maybe you explicate the correspondence without the expression?
“My comments have been targeted at both camps….. Let me be clear here that I have not taken any sides nor have I insinuated that Mr Siew is wrong and his accusers are right and vice versa.”
You dodged my question here. My question was: who are these “people” he “cannot blame”? The ones who character-assassinated him?
In any case, you are right in that there is no evidence that SKH is not guilty. For all we know, he might be. (Truth be told, I can’t care less, I am only interested in arguments and DR Frank “Curious” Joseph). That said, it is impossible to prove a negative, and since we are possibly talking about treason here, the onus, you will agree, is on the accuser to produce the goods. Otherwise, he is to be presumed innocent (legally). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and whatnot.
On your fourth point: Come now, there was nothing “gentle” about your question. A) You presumed to have read SKH’s mind i.e. that he didn’t consider the consequences you suggested. B) You failed to explicate what should be the end-game of such considerations; should he or shouldn’t he make a police report? C) You are/were, strangely, sure that the authorities will clamp down on the internet on the back of his police report. D) You implied that the authorities would do so unjustifiably i.e. beyond libel deterrence. E) You failed to lay out why he should be accountable if and when the authorities do.
P.S. No need for apologies.
SKH has written to REACH to release IP addresses among other things.
REACH has wisely responded with the following
“Mr Siew has also asked REACH to furnish him with the IP addresses and particulars of the netizens who made the alleged postings on the REACH website. As his request will breach our website’s privacy policy, we are unable to accede to it. ”
There is hope yet for freedom in Cyberland.
Hi Mrthinktalk,
No thanks for selective reporting. REACH also removed the malicious comments against Siew Kum Hong. Many internet forums would respond in the same manner too. A court order is required for the release of IP addresses. This just shows how Gemami is over-paranoid. As expected, his anonymous critics will now play the victim card. Only stupid people will fall for the victim card.
8) gemami on May 18th, 2009 2.05 pm
//Mr Siew, you have shown yourself to be a good NMP, even though you may not have shown the same level of professional integrity in your personal dealings.//
May I please know what “personal dealings” were you referring to?
141) Donaldson Tan on May 21st, 2009 12.35 pm
//Siew Kum Hong was shot down as the messenger for the AWARE Old Guards//
IMO if that happened then it was totally unfair as he is free to support the cause of any NGO in his personal capacity.
What was raised after the May 2 EGM was whether he could legally act as the alleged legal advisor of Aware.
According to a Channel News Asia’s 15 May story, an email was sent to “four legal bodies : The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA) and the Singapore Academy of Law” seeking clarification on whether he “had contravened the Legal Profession Act by rendering pro-bono legal advisory work.” See link below:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/429367/1/.html
SKH said that “It was the members of the Old Guard of AWARE who described me as their legal adviser. I did not hold myself up as such.”
I am prepared again to give him the benefit of the doubt.
TOC reported during the May 2 EGM that “Mr Siew Kum Hong was asked to move to the associate members’ section of the room. The crowd booed. Mr Siew is the legal advisor to the old guards. The old guards have asked for him to be present as the new guards too have their legal advisor with them. “ See link below:
Who told TOC that “Mr Siew is the legal advisor to the old guards”?
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/more-than-a-thousand-turn-up-for-aware-eogm/
In his own blog Mr Siew wrote that “I was the lightning rod that first drew their ire. Jenica Chua had already been informed earlier that I was a legal advisor for the original members ..” See link below :
“http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-i-took-away-from-2-may.html
IMO if the old guards had informed Jenica Chua that SKH was their legal advisor then he is in the clear. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
136) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 21st, 2009 9.27 am
//Hey someone curious mentioned my name! I’m getting popular! woot!//
Why are you not weighing in? We miss your enigmatic comments.