It is better to be sued than jump MRT right? When a person is at his wits end, he rather do something more honourable than commit suicide or throw thinner. If he is poor, where got money to pay defmation charges....and what can LKY do to him. End of the day, writing letter is the wise thing to do and who knows when alternative parties formed a new government, the writer will, by default, exonerated for telling fact like it is.
-
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.
Here is the anti-PAP flier that was distributed in two PAP GRC wards
- Thread starter SNAblog
- Start date
You stupid fool. When descibing general conditions, it is not about proof, it is about what the ground feels. You can pull statistics from your ass all day long and even if they are extremely accurate, they are useless if everyone feels otherwise.
How can a guilty verdict stand if they don't go after everyone who is doing the same thing openly? It will just mean the law is a joke. You are just another scare-mongering Pappy supporter trying to hide where your loyalty lies.
How can a guilty verdict stand if they don't go after everyone who is doing the same thing openly? It will just mean the law is a joke. You are just another scare-mongering Pappy supporter trying to hide where your loyalty lies.[/QUOTE]
good observation. the more he talks, the more it shows.
Once again the perennial loser Tonychat pops up...:oIo: you
If they are describing general conditions and how the ground feels, it would be ok however the problem here is that the article is very specific about who they are accusing. They specifically point at PAP
The author of that flyer could have done a better job of protecting his ass by simply NOT specifying who they are against and arguing point for point the faults of the government.
And as for the law, it provides pple with a way to protect themselves against slanderers. It offers a place for someone wrongly accused to seek redress. The problem is of coz 2 fold, U need to make sure that U can prove what U said.
For example, in the case where Durai was accused of taking 1st class flights when traveling for NKF, he sued that person and won. However with the benefit of Hindsight, we now know that Durai did indeed took first class flights. The problem was the other guy couldnt prove it.
It is important to be able to back what you said with solid evidence. Not only does it serve to protect yourself, it also enhance what you've said
The opposite to defamation is of coz total freedom of speech. However that in itself can lead to other problems. Take for example the case of Matthew Snyder. U can read the case here -> http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html
Yah maybe they can sue the writer for using harsh language like 'blood-sucking, betray, villian, corrupt' because no one can dispute fact that they implemented the gst increase and allow Ftrash invasion.
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.
Last edited:
None of the above: he is acting as himself - a reactionary maniac.
Anything ,anything having a hint of criticism
against the miw regime must be assumed to be scandalous or libellous ???????
as if they are God that they will never do anything wrong ??????????????????
Yeah sinkeeland is a money-making corporation for the MIW,the people are mere digits or robots,no questions asked ? ,don't ask any questions? ,just work the farking long hours for 3 farking meals ! Yeah can tell the MIW GO FARK SPIDERS !
This poster also not bad.
think can distribute at MRT stations and HDB estates too.
hopefully will not land Uncle Yap into any trouble...
From certain angle he reminds me of that HK actor Richard Ng..:p
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?
This idea of knowing PAP records in having such coward behavior, sinkies has 2 choices. ONe is cowardly avoid confrontation and the other is going against it. Why pay tax for a govt to screw you. LIke the thais, they throw their punches back. People has the right to say anything they want, even bullshit, and it is their right. Getting sue for saying things which is their right has to be protested against to hold up the rights for people of any countries.
To say things and get sue have to be protested against. This is country and not a company or celebrity. Paying tax for a govt and the govt use your tax money against you. It is more like protecting his own party and parliamentary seats
People is not fantasizing the ruling party's downfall, people are wishing the ruling party to fall. I thought that is quite a clear distinction. Trying to win an argument by putting words into other people's mouth? As i say again,to say anything they want is their right, if a govt uses this to sue, the people has to counter it. But dun worry, sinkies are too coward to do that. IS that a relief for you?
You cannot remember is because you are bullshitting your shit here.
Yeah I agree. I never said it was correct, however that wasn't my point. My point was very simple, in SG U can get sued for accusing someone of something which U cannot back up with solid evidence. BTW FYI the "holy trinity" tries to circumvent this by claiming that they are suing for themselves and not in the name of the party.
I'm not against pple countering it. In fact I am all for anyone counter suing someone for shoot Bullshit from their mouth
Unlike U I don't pull BS from my ass and shoot to from my mouth
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/3552-part-1-the-truth-about-chiam-see-tongs-departure
:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:
HA ha ha what a sad story that the born loser jump mrt track,...... must be written by potential born loser asshole in this forum.....damn shiok hor.......
For someone who claims not to support or oppose the PAP, you certainly were pretty quick to jump in to scare people about defamation suits, even before any comments on the contents of the flyer. The flyer was very clearly discussing PAP's performance, so this is a thread about PAP's performance indirectly as well. So now you are claiming you are not neutral about PAP. Not only are you a spy, you are also a fucking liar and a bad one too.
There is discussing the government's performance and then there is this
The above statements are accusations and not "discussion of performance" If you discuss their performance its either someone did something well or not. And not someone took something for themselves.
I neither dispute those claims nor agree with them. Putting aside the fact that of whether they are correct or wrong, someone is liable to get sued for making baseless accusation and like I said again and again, my point as I said before serveral times already is that unless that guy can prove that what he said, he can be sued for defamation.
Not sure about you, but I don't think any of the things he mentioned are easy to prove
The above statements are accusations and not "discussion of performance" If you discuss their performance its either someone did something well or not. And not someone took something for themselves.
I neither dispute those claims nor agree with them. Putting aside the fact that of whether they are correct or wrong, someone is liable to get sued for making baseless accusation and like I said again and again, my point as I said before serveral times already is that unless that guy can prove that what he said, he can be sued for defamation.
Not sure about you, but I don't think any of the things he mentioned are easy to prove
Similar threads
