• 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.

Haha! PM Lee sent lawyer letter to gay boy Alex Au.

wendychan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

Self-representation cost you $0.

you must be kidding right... there are lots of legal terms not to mention loop holes that no layman will be able to spot...
very easy to say represent yourself....
 

freedalas

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

If Alex believe that his posting is factual, he should proceed to challenge Lee.

If Alex remove his 4 blog postings, that mean he is a unreliable person, such that all his future and past comments and thoughts are suspiciously false as well.

Let see which path he choose.

This is what the PAP wants the people to believe. But too bad for the PAP. The people are much more discerning now. Whatever Alex does now, the people will understand and accept considering the situation he is in. Most importantly, whatever he had wrote and the comments appended, the people had read them. And even more importantly, the people believed in what is being written. I suggest that instead of just talking within your PAP circle of ball carriers that are delusional, talk to others outside that circle, and you will realise how negative the people perceive the PAP in this episode that only add to their perception of how little integrity if at all the PAP has.
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
The playing field is not level. If they take you to court even when you have a winnabale case, you are far more likely to be a loser in the end.

Not really. If what you published is factual, you just need to back up your claims with evidence in the court.

However, if what you published is based on intelligent guesses then good luck to your case.

There are many case laws to illustrate this.

I refer to the Penal Code, Section 499 on what does not constitute Defamation:

Imputation of any truth which the public good requires to be made or published.
First Exception.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that
the imputation should be made or published.Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Public conduct of public servants.
Second Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person
touching any discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and
no further.

Conduct of any person touching any public question.
Third Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person
touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a
public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such a meeting, in
forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any
situation in the efficient discharge of the duties in which the public is interested.

Publication of reports of proceedings of courts of justice, etc.
Fourth Exception.—It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice, or of
Parliament, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.
A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open court preliminary to a trial in a court of justice, is a court within the
meaning of the above section.

Merits of case decided in a court of justice; or conduct of witnesses and others concerned therein.
Fifth Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil
or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent,
in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

you must be kidding right... there are lots of legal terms not to mention loop holes that no layman will be able to spot...
very easy to say represent yourself....

Been there, done that.
 

ray_of_hope

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

Self-representation cost you $0.

hahaha. If you lose the case there is every likelihood that you will be asked to pay the other side's costs, which could come up to several hundred k.
 

wendychan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

hahaha. If you lose the case there is every likelihood that you will be asked to pay the other side's costs, which could come up to several hundred k.
yes good point. i forgot that one....
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

hahaha. If you lose the case there is every likelihood that you will be asked to pay the other side's costs, which could come up to several hundred k.

Sure. If you are out to defame somebody, make sure have $ to pay if you cannot back up your claims - otherwise, don't be a cowboy.
 

ray_of_hope

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

The people are much more discerning now.

Who is "The people"? Ah soh and ah pek in 2 room flats in chai chee or sembawang?
These folks still make up the bedrock of our society. They will not even understand the meaning of "discerning". :biggrin:
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

The case below span over 39 pages and I've posted only part of the start and end of the text.

Full case can be downloaded from here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?c48ljta241ocdc9

Happy reading.

------------

Wong Hwee Im Clare Nee Lim v Yeo Chor Cher (also known as Mrs Winnie Wang) [2006] SGDC 78


<tbody>
</tbody>
Suit No:DC Suit 3435/2002, DA 6/2006
Decision Date:21 Apr 2006
Court:District Court
Coram:Tan Boon Khai
Counsel:Oommen Mathew (Haq & Selvam) for plaintiff, N. Srinivasan (Heng, Leong & Srinivasan) for defendant

<tbody>
</tbody>

<tbody>
</tbody>
Subject Area / Catchwords

<tbody>
</tbody>
Civil Procedure - Trial - Application for liability and quantum of damages to be tried separately - Plaintiff applying at commencement of trial for split trial -Application to be made early in proceedings - Whether defendant suffering prejudice if application granted - Whether application should be granted

Damages - Assessment - Plaintiff failing to explain losses and quantify them in monetary terms - Burden on plaintiff to do so - Assuming malicious prosecution claim made out, whether possible to determine what loss resulting to plaintiff - Whether plaintiff entitled to damages

Tort - Malicious Prosecution - Elements - Whether defendant prosecuting plaintiff maliciously in bringing private summons against her - Whether absence of reasonable and probable cause in private summons proceedings - If reasonable and probable cause proven, lack of malice no matter - Malice and want of reasonable and probable cause dependent on circumstances of case
Judgment

<tbody>
</tbody>
21 April 2006Judgment reserved

<tbody>
</tbody>

District Judge Tan Boon Khai

Introduction


1 In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for damages under the tort of malicious prosecution. In a nutshell, the Plaintiff complained that the Defendant had maliciously prosecuted her in Private Summons No. 1195 of 1999 (“PSS1195/99”), which summons was withdrawn by the Defendant mid-way through the trial proceedings. The summons had accused the Plaintiff of, inter alia, criminal defamation under sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), after various obscene and vulgar faxes were received by the Defendant sometime in October 1997.

2 Following the Defendant’s withdrawal of PSS1195/99, the court in that case granted the Plaintiff a discharge amounting to an acquittal. The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for the Defendant to reimburse her the costs of those proceedings, on the basis that the proceedings instituted by the Defendant were not frivolous or vexatious.

3 As a result of the Defendant’s actions in pursuing, and discontinuing, PSS1195/99, the Plaintiff claimed that she was “injured in her reputation and was put to considerable trouble, inconvenience, anxiety and expense”. Insofar as she had suffered any loss and damage, she averred as follows: (i) legal expenses in defending PSS1195/99; (ii) loss of reputation; (iii) moral stigma; and (iv) other losses to be assessed and/or quantified (see paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim).

4 At the end of the proceedings, having taken time to consider parties’ respective evidence as well as closing submissions, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff, being dissatisfied with my judgment, has appealed against my decision. I now give my written reasons.

:
:
:

121 It should be mentioned that from the commencement of these proceedings, from pleadings to the filing of AEICs to set down, and even till the pre-trial conference stage, the Plaintiff never once indicated that she was taking the approach of a spilt trial on both liability and quantum. The Plaintiff only took this position after it was apparent when this trial began that there was no evidence to prove her loss. The Plaintiff’s application therefore appeared more of a tactical decision to try to salvage her claim.

122 The law governing whether to grant a spilt trial on liability and quantum was clear. The normal procedure, especially in the absence of any parties’ early indication before the hearing commenced, was for the issue of liability and damages to be tried together, unless it was just and convenient to order a spilt trial: see Coenen v Payne and Anor [1974] 2 All ER 1109, [1974] 1 WLR 984. Considering the factual scenario in this case, it was clearly not just for there to be a spilt trial at this late stagebecause parties had, right till the first day of trial, and when filing AEICs, proceeded on the assumption that this trial would be on both liability and quantum. It was not right for the Plaintiff, well knowing that she borne the burden of proving her loss in her AEIC, to come now and say that a spilt trial ought to be ordered so that she could adduce further evidence of the loss and damage she suffered. Why did she not put this evidence in her AEIC in the first place then?

123 The Plaintiff argued that there would be no prejudice caused to the Defendant if a spilt trial was ordered, but in my view, that argument was untenable. Assuming a spilt trial was ordered, these proceedings may be further prolonged, and more AEICs filed. All this would incur cost and expense, and was neither convenient nor just to the Defendant, who had all this while proceeded on the basis that the issues of liability and quantum in these proceedings would be determined fully and finally at one go. Crucially, as I stated earlier, this would afford the Plaintiff two bites at the cherry. The Plaintiff should have put in evidence of her loss right from the beginning, after directions were given by the court. She chose not to do so, and must be responsible for the consequences.

124 Procedures are in place for proceedings to be conducted fairly and efficiently. They were not there for parties to abuse in order to remedy holes in their evidence, or gaps in their case. By allowing the Plaintiff in this case a fresh opportunity to conduct her case through a spilt trial, it would effectively prolong these proceedings, and result a delay that was undesirable for everyone.

125 Of course, the issue of a spilt trial was academic in view of my decision that the Plaintiff’s case for malicious prosecution was not made out. Having said that, I considered it in order to fully address the Plaintiff’s application.

Conclusion


126 For all the abovestated reasons, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. Costs were awarded to the Defendant, to be agreed or taxed.
 
Last edited:

myfoot123

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

Teo Ho Pin: Master Lee, my skeleton was caught, so many bloggers can see it with their naked eyes, so how?

Lee Hsien Loong: Don't worry, you have put up a good wayang already, let me call my other dog. Davin Singh!!!! Lai!!!!

D.Singh: Yes master?

Lee Hsien Loong: Performance bonus coming, you want me to give you good appraisal to earn your million bonus? You read Alex Au blog and send him a lawyer letter:

D.Singh: No problem, that is easy for my million dollar bonus from you, but what should I write?

Lee Hsien Loong: Make it simple, just said false allegation and sue,sue, sue!!!!

D. Singh: Will do just that

Teo Ho Pin: Thank you master, you are my saviour and I will remain loyal to you at all cost. Oh, will I get my million bonus too for the recent wayang?

Lee Hsien Loong: Sure, but you must shut up after my Alex take down his blog and hope nobody will remember our corruptions.

Teo Ho Pin: What if WP press on and other netizens too?

Lee Hsien Loong: I will get Braddell pros sisters to suck it up for you. Order Ms Chua for me now!!

D. Singh: You are wicked...hehehe.
 

PTADER

Alfrescian
Loyal
JUST IN: PM Lee Hsien Loong's lawyers send letter to blogger Alex Au to remove AIM saga blog post on town councils containing "defamatory allegations" and apologise within 3 days. Details to follow.


What will the Workers Party do on 14 January 2013?

Will the WP Parliamentarians be silent, reticent and fearful and not raise this AIM issue in Parliament? And will they continue to rely on their Vellama modus operandi, i.e. remain silent and let ordinary citizens, netizens and bloggers do the work, carry out the heavy lifting and take the risks on their behalf (even as these WP MPs enjoy the privileges, perks and benefits of being a $16,041/month MP)?

With all that have been published by bloggers and netizens, it is to be expected and simply a matter of time before the incorrigible Dauphin and his merry men latched on to something and revert back to what his father, he and his lackeys do best, i.e. threaten to sue or sue. Old habits die hard.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by all MPs, including those from the Workers Party. The purpose of Parliamentary privilege is to allow MPs to speak freely during ordinary Parliamentary proceedings without any fear of legal action. Non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street do not enjoy such a privilege. Notwithstanding this lack of privilege, these non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street have spoken up on many and varied issues. To their credit, they have done a lot of work. They have carried out the heavy lifting. And they have courageously taken the risks in doing so.

The AIM issue directly affects the WP. The WP has a presence of 6 MPs and 2 NCMPS in Parliament. It is for the WP Parliamentarians to raise and pursue the AIM issue in Parliament.

Voters have also voiced their concern about the AIM issue. Voters have voted the WP into Parliament for a reason. To be their voices. It is the one of the primary duties and responsibilities of being an elected member of a First World Parliament to voice the concerns of your constituents and the electorate in Parliament.

In order to get to the bottom of this AIM issue once and for all, it is incumbent on the WP to raise and pursue this matter in Parliament when Parliament sits on 14 January 2013. If it does not but instead, expects non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street to continue to raise and pursue the matter outside of Parliament, it will merely prove, once and yet again, all that have been said by skeptics and critics about the Workers Party and the pusillanimous leadership of the Workers Party.
 
Last edited:

steffychun

Alfrescian
Loyal
What will the Workers Party do on 14 January 2013?

Will the WP Parliamentarians be silent, reticent and fearful and not raised this AIM issue in Parliament? And will they continue to rely on their Vellama modus operandi, i.e. remain silent and let ordinary citizens, netizens and bloggers do the work, carry out the heavy lifting and take the risks on their behalf (even as these WP MPs enjoy the privileges, perks and benefits of being an MP)?

With all that have been published by bloggers and netizens, it is to be expected and simply a matter of time before the Dauphin and his merry men latched on to something and revered back to what his father, he and his lackeys do best, i.e. threatened to sue or sue. Old habits die hard.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by all MPs, including those from the Workers Party. The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow MPs to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without any fear of legal action. Non-elected politicans, bloggers, netizens, bloggers and the man in the street do not enjoy such a privilege. Notwithstanding this lack of privilege, these non-elected politicans, bloggers, netizens, bloggers have spoken up on many and varied issues. To their credit, they have done a lot of work. They have carried out the heavy lifting. And they have courageously taken the risks in doing so.

The AIM issue directly affects the WP. The WP has a presence of 6 MPs and 2 NCMPS in Parliament. It is for the WP Parliamentarians to raise and pursue the AIM issue in Parliament.

Voters have also voiced their concern about the AIM issue. Voters have voted the WP into Parliament for a reason. To be their voices. It is part of the duties and responsibilities of being an elected member of a First World Parliament to voice the concerns of your constituents and the electorate in Parliament.

In order to get to the bottom of this AIM issue once and for all, it is incumbent on the WP to raise and pursue this matter in Parliament when Parliament sits on 14 January 2013. If it does not but instead, expects others to continue to raise and pursue the matter outside of Parliament, it will merely prove, once and yet again, all that have been said by skeptics and critics about the Workers Party and the pussilanimous leadership of the Workers Party.

Ah the anti WP brigade again...
 

steffychun

Alfrescian
Loyal
Frankly speaking, D. Singh is PAP member and he cannot send letter to protect PAP because it is not independent. If LHL wanted to send lawyer letter, it should come from person who is not partisan to any party. D.Singh is living on taxpayers money, so he is using tax money to sue the taxpayer for questioning PAP's loopholes.

Who is a non partisan lawyer in Singapore?
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

Imho, it doesnt really matter if Alex backed down, No loss of face, no loss of credibility, absolutely none at all becos we all know who he is and we also know who the PAP is.

just like the neighborhood bully, the one who walks away is not nec the culprit or rogue or guilty. It's just discretion is the better part of valour.

Of cos, we dont expect kukus like brocoli, kinana, kukubird, to understand. They have been eating their shit for too long.

Apologise, retract , comply with whatever demands before the deadline, preferable expect a legal response and on he spot of being served: comply !

..
 

steffychun

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: [Breaking News] PM Lee wants to sue Alex Au over blog posts about AIM!

Imho, it doesnt really matter if Alex backed down, No loss of face, no loss of credibility, absolutely none at all becos we all know who he is and we also know who the PAP is.

just like the neighborhood bully, the one who walks away is not nec the culprit or rogue or guilty. It's just discretion is the better part of valour.

Of cos, we dont expect kukus like brocoli, kinana, kukubird, to understand. They have been eating their shit for too long.

Yeah life goes on. US won't invade, UN won't put sanctions, West will not condemn.
 

blackmondy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Standard procedure from these chee-bye pap-smear scums.

Can't win by argument, then win by lawsuits. KNNCCB.
 
Top