• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Reasons behind a legal suit

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
kingrant

you know... that can be tabled as a national referendum in a BE or alex can stand for election and if he wins, his contention would be considered as whole and true.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Imagine, many in SIA and those who worked NKF knew full well that Durai was flying first class in SIA. Yet no one was prepared to come forward or support Archie Ong who is a well known character and a recognised retiree who has done tremendous work in the charity sector. Durai got apologies and damages in 56 over cases over many years by abusing the existing libel laws. As he had full support of the Minister of Health and the patron was the PM's wife, no one was prepared to step forward. People just assumed that anything associated with the establishment figures are too dangerous to intervene.

Yet this same law exist in its current form and continuously abused.


NKF...
And defamation
Saga shows this law can also protect influential wrongdoers from public exposure. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jan 2, 2006

In good times and bad, Singapore’s stability has rested on a strong legal system strictly enforced, including defamation laws that prevent the sort of wild politics that exists elsewhere.

It has created a society where people don’t make wild accusations against each other as a result of a government frequently setting the tone to sue offenders, big or small.

Since few citizens truly know what really constitutes defamation, it has resulted in a society that’s lavish with praise but short of even the slightest attack on any influential entity, whatever the circumstances.

An official spokesman recently reaffirmed that “the Government draws the ... conclusion that our libel law is what keeps the system clean and honest”.

This rationale has blurred somewhat in the wake of the National Kidney Foundation scandal involving its former CEO T.T. Durai and ex-board of directors, over which much has already been written.

It raised a question whether the republic’s defamation law is also – apart from preventing the innocent from any slanderous assault – protecting wrongdoings by the rich and powerful from being discovered.

Take the case of Madam Tan Kiat Noi. She was sued in 1999 for accusing the NKF of “paying ridiculously high bonuses” to its staff. At a time when his power was rising, the thin-skinned Durai sued.

Mdm Tan settled by publicly apologising and paying S$50,000 in damages as well as NKF's legal costs.

She wasn’t the only victim. Two others, Archie Ong and Piragasum Singavelu, suffered the same fate when they alleged that Durai had travelled by first class on charity money.

Again he sued for defamation, forcing both to settle out of court, pay damages and apologise. Ironically, these allegations, the high bonuses and first class travels, were true as revealed by the recent KPMG report.

Neither Durai nor NKF has apologised or tried to undo the injustice to these people, which led an angry writer to say, “What the NKF saga has proved is that people who win defamation lawsuits may not be innocent and those who lose may not be guilty.”

Actually the courts could not be blamed since these cases never reached any hearing. At fault was Singapore’s defamation law, which clearly favours the rich and powerful.

Like most citizens, Durai’s three “victims” simply could not afford to fight it out against a giant like NKF (with assets of S$240mil), irrespective of right or wrong.

Durai’s “victories” had an impact in convincing the public into believing that his outfit was properly run and its money was not wasted.

Truth had become a casualty when the defamation law became a weapon of the wealthy.

You don’t often see a bricklayer suing a property tycoon for libel or defamation, only the other way around. Even if he does and wins, his compensation can be a lot smaller than a defamed business leader.

Singapore is, of course, not an exception. Try suing Bill Gates for whatever reason!

Lawyer Siew Kum Hong wrote, “the defamation law is very skewed in favour of the plaintiff”.

He explained: “It is one of the very few areas of law (in fact, the only one that comes to mind readily), where the defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.

“The plaintiff only has to show that the defendant said or wrote something about the plaintiff that would tend to make people think less of the plaintiff. That is all he needs to do.

“To win, the defendant must prove that what he said was true, or that it was a fair comment on a matter of public interest, or that the circumstances of the statement made it qualified – for instance, it was said in Parliament or on the witness stand. That can be a real uphill task.”

For Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, this law is crucial. “If you defame us, we’re prepared to sue you, go into witness box and be cross-examined ... If you don’t sue, repetition of the lie [makes it credible]. It will be believed ...”

He and other government leaders have successfully sued and won defamation lawsuits against some of their critics, especially opposition figures and the foreign media.

Its frequent use has contributed to the sort of litigious society the government wants to avoid.

The law has also rendered whistle-blowing (an insider revealing a grave wrongdoing) either in a government department or in a large corporation a virtually suicidal task.

Because of the expenses, Singaporeans simply choose to turn a blind eye when they see something radically wrong, and society is the loser.

If any of Durai’s three victims had been able to afford a Senior Counsel, the truth about the NKF could have been exposed earlier, limiting the present damage.

A retired contractor who was hired to install Durai’s office bathroom 10 years ago gave The Straits Times the first hint that things were not really right.

He was quoted as saying that NKF was using a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap.

“I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least S$1,000. It was crazy. You’re a charity using donors’ money,” huffed the man who was then a donor.

After his outburst, he was told to “just do” his job, but the taps were eventually “scaled down” to an upmarket chrome-plated model. He stopped donating from then on.

The defamation law remains in place to ensure orderliness in Singapore but it serves better those who can afford a good lawyer over those who cannot.
 
Last edited:

Vigilante

Alfrescian
Loyal
My side concern out of all these is whether PAP thru its management of the companies it own has retained or use or abuse any data of residents in the hdb flats.....
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Singaporeans have to understand that the Singapore politicians has never succeeded in suing anyone outside Singapore. The attempt in Canada failed. Not much to crow about. Here are some of the reasons that people do not contest legal suits of this nature even when they are not in the wrong.

1. If you do not have deep pockets you do not contest because its takes a lorry load of money to go the distance. There is also avenue open to the plaintiff in a lawsuit to secure collateral or security from the defendent to contest. There is also the cost of not only of your own lawyer but that of the plaintiff to fork out in the event it does not go your way.

2. It might walk like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck and quack like a duck but in the eyes of the courts rooted in the british version of libel laws, you cannot reasonably infer that it is a duck unlike the US courts. Even when it is sincere interpretation of events that led to the inference.

3. In an oppressive climate like Singapore, there is zero hope in hell to secure witnesses or even experts that are prepared to support and testify on your behalf when the plaintiff are associated with the PAP. That is common sense. If this govt does a confidential poll of randomly selected individuals right across society's spectrum excluding PA registered grassroots leaders / volunteers and PAP registered members, I will be surprised if they get 5% who are prepared to appear before th courts.

In essence, in many such cases, an apology, withdrawal of comment etc are tactical moves. When Lance Armstrong sued, the Papers paid and now they are suing him back for the return of the settlement plus more. His is not the only case. Former MP, peer and author Jeffrey Archer is another.

An intelligent person will look at Alex Au's record, his sincerity in addressing and resolving issues in the past to make an assessment.

The PAP knows full well that an anonymous blogger carries little weight and they are doing just that to get rid of Alex. We do a great disservice if we consider Alex irresponsible based on his past contribution and track record. He has been the nation's conscience for quite a while. If we let Alex down, we let ourselves down.

Thumbs up!
 

andyfisher

Alfrescian
Loyal
This is my fair comment, i could be wrong:

D sued P for libel (written defamation)
P then has to show that what P wrote abt D is factual (factual and true not the same thing)
P tak boleh tahan this suit now, so he settle, it doesnt mean what P said is false or is true even, it just means P did not prove in court that what P wrote is factually correct - think abt that

Alex Au is a martyr for the cause
 

Bigfuck

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
No worries, it is coming. The little birds are accurate. Leegime are deluded if they think that all Singaporeans are cowards and that the number of angry are few.
 

Dreamer1

Alfrescian
Loyal
No worries, it is coming. The little birds are accurate. Leegime are deluded if they think that all Singaporeans are cowards and that the number of angry are few.
Firestorm?烈焰风暴即将到来?God bless,amen.上帝保佑,阿们。
 

iamhere

Alfrescian
Loyal
What are we going to do? This has been going on and on for years.




REMEMBER to

VOTE papees OUT


do yrself, yr forefathers and yr generations to come, a favor, a service and a long-awaited justice



因廟堂之上,朽木為官;殿陛之間,禽獸食祿。狼心狗行之輩,滾滾當朝;奴顏婢膝之徒,紛紛秉政...... .......




:wink::wink::wink::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::wink::wink::wink:
 
Last edited:

kongsimi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Seriously what did he said which was considered libel?

I thought he just asked some questions to find out the truth?
 

tanwahp

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I saw this comment by forummer tanwahp and thought it was worth a separate discussion. My sense is that people have a tendency to come to an erroneous conclusion when such letter of demands are issued and when a withdrawal of comments made and an apology follows.

What is the reason behind this latest legal suit?
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha.....it is precisely because of pple like scroobal that papee takes a firm stance against unsubstantiated allegations......and blur cock still wondering why like that..
of course along the way there will be collatoral casualties.
Now let us look at the AIM issuee.
this is a typical case of " emperor not concerned but enuchs got excited"
the transactions all happened months ago not last week or last month....it smacked of cya by wp..
if it is a matter of public interest, surely you don't wait for months to raise it.....
in that period, we have many parliament sittings, HG BE, and many other " immediate" channels available to wp to raise it...press release, official website; etc...

Now that the emperor raise the issues, a lot of enuchs got excited and jumped on the bandwagaon in a typical feeding frenzy....
Now AA has been singled out for misrepresentation....wy is he left to hang and dry???
there are a few senior lawyers in WP CEC....the matter was first raised by WP.....why can't they help??
did AA approached them or did they offered to help????
why wp did not offer to help???
Is it because they are also demanding a lot of money to defend AA on a matter of public interest first raise by them or they agree that it is mis-representation by AA and he deserved to be hung?????
surely this is a good opportunity for wp to step in and raise their profile as a credible party and not a wayang party if there is mis-carriage of justice????
It is time to take a step back and reflect on the basic questions and not be always be led by the nose.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Brother,kukubird58',wow Brother Scroobal so powderful miao?I tot he was a joker who tries his very best to get his SCROOP,which I am in all honestly ,duty bound to admit that he is very successful,the best in Istana,Toa Payah and CC-the control centre of Media Corse,God bless,amen
 
Last edited:

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
If there was any paragraph or sentence that was defamatory, Alex should remove these only and not have to take down the whole blog. The rest are valid assertions of facts, so why shld the whole blog be taken down?
 

watchman8

Alfrescian
Loyal
Does anyone find it interesting that LHL is issuing this letter only in his personal capacity, and Teo Ho Pin is not part of this lawyer letter?
 

Dreamer1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Does anyone find it interesting that LHL is issuing this letter only in his personal capacity, and Teo Ho Pin is not part of this lawyer letter?
If the action is by Lee H L the individual the man,then WTF does a Singapore ordinary man have to do with the AJTC?is he asking for election for Pongol as the Indian lady did?so may be he is doing his citizen's responsibility?Sorry,I am not a lawyer.cheers
 

watchman8

Alfrescian
Loyal
If the action is by Lee H L the individual the man,then WTF does a Singapore ordinary man have to do with the AJTC?is he asking for election for Pongol as the Indian lady did?so may be he is doing his citizen's responsibility?Sorry,I am not a lawyer.cheers
All the 14 town councils are implicated, and that means all the 14 GRCs MPs are implicated by Alex Au postings on this matter, not just LHL. So why is it that only LHL is threatening defamation suit? Why are the remaining pap MPs remaining silent? Why isn't THP also part of lawyer letter to Alex Au?
 
Top