The PAP has been in power for for almost 50 years and they currently hold 82 seats out of 84 in Parliament. One very senior old man has been the top man in this organisation for more than half a century. If they are should not be held accountable for conditions in Sinkieland, who should? Obama or the CCP? Sure, they can put the blame on global trends blah blah blah. But if they can't do anything, why should they be paid their enormous salaries? And please forget the crap about no one wanting to go into politics. The defamation suits are one of the means of deterrence. See how everything goes in circles.
In democratic countries, politicians are extremely wary of using defamation lawsuits when people criticise their policies or blame them for mishandling state affairs. On issues of incompetence, it is usually a matter of opinion and it cannot stand as defamation. When the tide of public opinion turns, I would like to see how you defend these defamation claims as valid. Other than saying people cannot prove their claims that PAP members have benefited immensely from their positions, how about a dose of transparency to actually show that they have not gained substantially due to their positions? Can't be done easily? Then think twice about sueing people for making the claims.
I am glad you are no longer concealing your true allegiance. Please do not try to mislead others with your "I am neutral" stance again. Spies will get the same treatment meted out to traitors.
What allegiance? This has nothing to do with PAP ruling for 50 yrs, or if they run the country well or are ruining the country. I'm just simply saying, what the guy said was liable to being sue for defamation. Defamation cases are not criminal cases, they are cases where 1 individual sue the other individual. Given PAP's record in this, they can and will sue someone for it. Does it make any difference if this was stated by an opposition party member? No coz its just facts, someone who shoot bullshit out of this mouth can get sued in SG
Can that guy prove what he said? if so, good then he has nothing to worry about. If not then he might get sued. Simple enough point. I don't see how U can link 1 + 1 into 100
I don't claim to be neutral, you guys said I'm trying to be. Neither do I support either PAP that's also accusation thrown my way coz I dun fantasize about the ruling party's downfall all day everyday. I just look at the thread in here, and comment according to what I think and in this case, I think the guy who said something he cannot justify is liable to being sued by the members within PAP who have a good record of doing so
BTW CST have also used defamation suits to clear his name before. Once against PAP, yes he won, they settled the matter privately and another time against SDP/Chee can't really remember which in which case he also won. Does that make CST a PAP supporter because he believes in using the law to clear his name?