Editorial
ST writes yet another misleading article about the PM Lee’s allegation of defamation against Leong Sze Hian
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/12/27052207/leongszehian-LHL.jpg)
Leong Sze Hian, a financial consultant and well-known Singaporean blogger who has been sued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong over a Facebook share he made earlier on 7 November, wrote in a Facebook post on Wednesday that he was bewildered when Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier LLC sent him a Letter of Demand on the 12th of November alleging that he had defamed the Prime Minister and demanding that he make a public apology and compensate the Prime Minister for damages.
He explains that he had only shared an article that had appeared in the Malaysian online news media, TheCoverage.my and did not add any comments or embellish the article by The Coverage.my.
Leong wrote, “It is therefore grossly inaccurate for certain State media to have represented to the whole of Singapore that I had made a post which was defamatory of the Prime Minister.”
TOC wrote in an earlier report about Straits Times’ rather misleading headline where it said “PM Lee sues financial adviser Leong Sze Hian for defamation”. This is not entirely true. The ST headline makes it seem like it was Leong who was behind the offending article when in reality, he merely shared it. As the article was a premium article, readers who are not subscribers simply had to assume the matter from the headline.
In its latest report (not premium) on Thursday about Leong’s clarification, Straits Times wrote,
In his Wednesday Facebook post, Mr Leong also stressed that he did not add any comments or embellish the article taken from The Coverage when he shared it.
But court documents obtained by The Straits Times earlier this week show the offending words in the post referred to the title of the article. These were: “Breaking news: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong becomes 1MDB’s key investigation target – Najib signed several unfair…”
These words “meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff (PM Lee) was complicit in criminal activity relating to 1MDB”, said the Prime Minister’s lawyers from Drew & Napier.
There are also offending words in the article and when taken with those in the title, they “are false and baseless and were calculated to disparage and impugn the Plaintiff in his office as the Prime Minister”, the lawyers said.
Now anyone who used Facebook including reporters from Straits Times would have known that the title of an article will be shown in the shared post.
To illustrate the case, the below photo shows what the offending article looks like when shared on Facebook.
And if you compare to the words highlighted in the court documents by the lawyers, it is exactly what their case is about. That Leong’s post had the title of the article shown on his Facebook post even when he wrote nothing to indicate his stance on the matter just as what many others did with their Facebook shares.
ST’s choice of words, “But court documents obtained by The Straits Times earlier this week show the offending words in the post referred to the title of the article.” after Leong’s clarification that he did not add any captions to the share, therefore gives a misleading impression that he did, in fact, write something in his Facebook share.
This creates a misunderstanding to readers who have no idea of the circumstance surrounding the allegations made by the Prime Minister and many who understood that PM is suing Leong simply over a Facebook share are voicing their criticism over the decision to do so, given his identity as a public figure and a politician.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Editorial
Undying Phoenix: TOC navigates regulatory restrictions with a revamped approach
Despite new regulations hindering operations, The Online Citizen Asia (TOC) views this as a chance to return to its roots, launching Gutzy Asia for Greater Asian news, while refocusing on Singapore. Inviting volunteer support, TOC’s commitment to truth and transparency remains unshakeable amidst these constraints.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/07/26190726/Gutz.png)
On 21 July 2023, the Ministry of Communications and Information, under the leadership of Minister Josephine Teo, declared The Online Citizen Asia’s (TOC) website and social media platforms as Declared Online Locations (DOL) according to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA).
This decision follows a series of alleged false statements propagated by TOC, with the most recent incident reported on 2 May.
Amidst a politically charged environment characterized by scandals involving the People’s Action Party and increasing public mistrust towards the ruling government, TOC will continue to operate, albeit under significant constraints, despite the regulatory restrictions imposed.
The DOL declaration mandates that TOC must carry a public notice on its online platforms, which indicates its alleged history of disseminating misinformation.
The POFMA Office, however, clarified that TOC can continue its operations, retaining its website and social media pages under stringent regulations, particularly concerning monetization.
According to Part 5 of the POFMA, TOC is prohibited from gaining financial or material benefits from its operations. Additionally, offering financial support to TOC is equally unlawful. For the next two years, TOC will be compelled to self-sustain, relying solely on its resources without any public backing.
It strikes TOC as notably ironic that the Singapore government, eager to stymie our operations to prevent the spread of “fake news”, simultaneously demonstrates a fervour to invest S$900 million of taxpayer funds into the SPH Media Trust, currently embroiled in a data misrepresentation scandal. This dichotomy indeed presents a masterclass in cognitive dissonance.
Despite these significant constraints, TOC views this as an opportunity to revert to its roots, replicating the enthusiasm and drive that characterized our operation following our establishment in 2006.
Our existing staff will transition to a new publication, Gutzy Asia, focusing on news from Greater Asia, while TOC will refocus on its primary subject, Singapore, hence dropping the Asia subtext.
In this transition, we invite volunteers passionate about journalism and holding power to account to join us in our mission. We also welcome contributions from Singapore’s political parties, offering them a platform to express their perspectives and provide updates.
While this change may result in a decrease in content volume and frequency, we assure our supporters that our commitment to truth and transparency remains steadfast. We are legally obliged not to seek financial aid, but we hope our supporters will provide us with manpower and information support.
We are resolute in our decision to continue TOC’s operations, standing in defiance against attempts to silence dissent through lawsuits and intimidating regulations. We are here to serve the people, and we will continue our mission with determination and resilience.
To keep up to date with the publication: Follow The Online Citizen via telegram (Gutzy Asia’s posts are included)
Editorial
Shanmugam, Balakrishnan, and the Code of Conduct: A Demand for Straight Answers
Editorial: Amid the recent controversy involving Singaporean ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the tenancy of two state properties, serious questions have surfaced about potential breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Despite being renowned for high standards of governance, the lack of a clear response from the ministers themselves and the decision to pass the issue to a review committee chaired by a fellow party member has raised eyebrows. The crucial question remains: does leasing property from the Singapore Land Authority, an organization overseen by the minister in question, breach the Code of Conduct?
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/05/26193807/kshan-vivian.png)
In a country renowned for its high standards of governance, the recent controversy surrounding the tenancy of two state properties by Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has raised some perplexing questions.
Both ministers, tasked with the important responsibility of upholding the integrity of Singapore’s laws and foreign affairs, respectively, find themselves under scrutiny following allegations of a potential breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Mr Shanmugam claimed in his statement on Tuesday (23 May) to have “nothing to hide” and encouraged questions.
However, the irony is palpable when we consider the simple question that remains unanswered: Does leasing from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), an organization he oversees, breach the Ministerial Code of Conduct?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to initiate a review is commendable and necessary to maintain the high standards of integrity that are a cornerstone of the Singapore government.
However, having a fellow People’s Action Party Senior Minister, Teo Chee Hean, chair the review does raise some questions. Furthermore, it remains puzzling why a straightforward answer isn’t forthcoming from the ministers implicated in this issue.
Under Section 3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it’s stipulated that a Minister must avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.
While we should refrain from jumping to conclusions before the review concludes, the public certainly has the right to question whether a Minister leasing public property could conceivably conflict with his public duty.
This predicament reflects an unprecedented evasion of responsibility, particularly from Mr Shanmugam, who has been vocal in demanding clear and direct responses from political opponents.
Now that the tables have turned, the nation awaits his clear and direct answer – does leasing the property at 26 Ridout Road contravene the Code of Conduct for ministers?
Instead of a straightforward response, we see the matter deferred to a review committee and promises of addressing the issue in Parliament, where the ruling People’s Action Party holds a supermajority. This is far from the accountability and directness we expect from a Minister, especially one overseeing Law and Home Affairs.
The question is simple and direct, yet the absence of a clear answer has inevitably raised eyebrows and triggered skepticism about our leaders’ transparency and accountability. It is incumbent upon Mr Shanmugam and Mr Balakrishnan to clear the air and restore public confidence by providing a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.
Do the two ministers not think that the average person will likely perceive a conflict of interest when ministers rent from a government agency under the Law Minister’s purview? Once such a perception exists, how can there be no breach of Clause 3 of the Ministerial Code?
Clause 3, analogous to the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, requires a Minister to avoid actual conflict of interest and apparent or perceived conflict of interest.
Parliamentary privilege and safe environments shouldn’t be an excuse for evading direct answers. Singaporeans deserve more than opaque explanations and bureaucratic deferrals; they deserve straightforward, honest responses from their public servants. This is a matter of trust, transparency, and, above all, integrity.
If there’s anything the public can perceive from the actions of the ministers so far, it’s how out of touch they appear to be with common folks – both in the matter of principle and the need for accountability – from atop their massive ivory towers on Ridout Road.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society5 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament4 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting