- Joined
- Nov 27, 2013
- Messages
- 533
- Points
- 0
The issue is not the defamation. The defamation suit is a side issue and weapon to cut down dissent and any attempt to seek the truth.
Let's face it. the PM's wife got a huge chunk of CPF funds at El cheep orates to fuel Temasek. She looks good but that money came from the blood and sweat of ordinary people. And did they get a fair return? If the same amount was given to a well regarded fund management company, will CPF members get a better return. I say yes.
Don't worry about the guarantee, for a premium, the govt can provide a guarantee. After all Temasek also had its bad years. And the vast majority of fund managers do survive and provide decent returns.
The govt still has not given a good explanation with or without the defamation suit.
Goh Meng Seng is opposition?
You are an idiot.
Oh he wasnt? You must be dreaming.
The issue is not the defamation. The defamation suit is a side issue and weapon to cut down dissent and any attempt to seek the truth.
Let's face it. the PM's wife got a huge chunk of CPF funds at El cheep orates to fuel Temasek. She looks good but that money came from the blood and sweat of ordinary people. And did they get a fair return? If the same amount was given to a well regarded fund management company, will CPF members get a better return. I say yes.
Don't worry about the guarantee, for a premium, the govt can provide a guarantee. After all Temasek also had its bad years. And the vast majority of fund managers do survive and provide decent returns.
The govt still has not given a good explanation with or without the defamation suit.
Please quote me fully if you want to quote, don't do half bake job here. The following is what I say:
Someone asked me about whether Roy has indeed defamed the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, my answer is YES. He has indeed defamed the Prime Minister by putting up that glaring insinuation that PM Lee is just like Kong Hee in City Harvest Church case whereby implying that PM Lee has committed misappropriation of public funds.
The truth is, after I have written my article on CPF recently, someone private message me and suggested to me to use the chart (only now I know it was used by Roy) displayed on that Roy's article. I immediately reply that this chart is borderline case defamation. It means that if you just put up the chart without putting any comment on it, there is still a chance, depending on how the lawyers argue, that you will be liable for defamation law suit.
I do not think Roy has any chance of defending himself against the defamation civil lawsuit. This is pretty clear cut. However, if we read the lawyer letter carefully, Prime Minister's lawyer didn't demand a fix amount of damages from Roy but instead, asked Roy to write back to offer an amount of damage he is willing to pay to PM Lee. Well, this is interesting to me and very different from previous letter of demand sent to activists or bloggers. Well I guess, most probably Roy will just get a slap on the wrist for his mischievous article.
End of Quote.
The truth is, Roy has unwittingly opened up opportunity for PM Lee to whack him and distract people away from the REAL issue. He could have done a better job by going straight into proper issue perspective but he chose to play with FANCIFUL graphics and words which he doesn't really know what these would get him into. Just learn the lesson, apologize, pay damage and case close. Save the day for another fight.
Goh Meng Seng
So what if Roy wrote back suggesting an amount? PM can still say peanut, end result no different from previous letters of demand.
It is interesting to me how people here bring out your name as ex-secretary general of NSP.
Goh Meng Seng contributing to the Drew and Napier lawyer then?