Latest: MP Vikram Nair wants to sue TOC's E-Jay Ng!

[OverTheCounter]

You have insulted cobras. Animals rights groups and PETA are going to sue you, you better watch out.

You mean this cobra?

 

[Ramseth]

At the most you can say it misinterpretes your illustration, but misrepresentation is a different thing and is intentional which I do not think E Jay is. So many have read it the same way. And even then misrepresentation is not defamatory.

Vikram also said WP's ministerial proposal is "the same" as the PAP's. Is that defamatory too? Should he ask WP to sue him? That, his misrepresentation was intentional, unlike this case.

He just brought the bar of defamation down to even below that of Lee Kuan Yew's. Congrats to him.

There's a difference between intentional and unintentional misrepresentation of facts leading to the defamation of one's reputation. If a lawsuit is filed, the difference is in the quantum of damages. Facts and only full facts are absolute defense against defamation.

For example, I saw you walking into a hotel with a woman. I went on to tell your wife and friends about it. But actually, you were just a corporate repsentative bringing a client to a restaurant in the hotel. It's still defamation because I didn't have full facts and evidence. But the damages may be migitated since I actually saw something and acting out of goodwill or in this case scenario, sense of domestic and social justice, i.e. I felt sorry for them and had to tell them.

Example 2, you somehow offended me and I cooked up a story about you having extramarital affairs. That's straightforth unmitigable malicious defamation.

Example 3, I saw you bringing a woman into a hotel all the way up into a room overnight and checking out only next morning. I go tell your wife, relatives and friends. It'd be indefensible since all hotels have check-in and check-out records and CCTV all the way to outside room doors. Sue me for defamation?

 

[Bigfuck]

I wonder nobody brought up the unintentional or intentional attempt to defame CSM by equating his proposal to a Nigerian scam. If you look at the illustrious legal and business career background of CSM, the implications to all those organizations associated to him and of him being implied as a swindler or a intellectually inferior is immeasurable. I am wondering if there is any legal merit to raise a case against the accuser of CSM being involved in Nigerian scams.

 

[myfoot123]

I think his point is that the returns from investing in people (aka social capital) is not tangible. The silly thing is he somehow decided to compare that to a Nigerian scam, which is bad analogy. The frequency of this "foot in mouth" syndrome in PAP MPs is astounding. This shows that some of the MP like Vikram Nair and Baey Yam Keng are truly lack common sense and public speaking skills.

Vikram was obviously trying to impress his master that all dirty words can be used as attack without going through his head. Baey on the other hand tried to act neutral but ended up criticising his own people. Both are screwed. How did they even pass the tea session? The only reason is, LHL is also screwed.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Vikram was obviously trying to impress his master that all dirty words can be used as attack without going through his head.

You are giving Vikram too much credit. ＂Without going through his head？＂　He must have thought it over thoroughly; just that he is not that smart after all.

 

[leetahbar]

all these suing nonsense ... sigh...nonsense from PAP....does it get u anywhere?
jb sued till he is dead. tang liang hong sued till he run away. chee soon juan sued till he bo lui.

whats the big deal?

have pap votes increased over the last few elections because of this suing nonsense...i dont think so.

i think the pap could fare better if they have not sued...cos people will have more respect for them!

this is called SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. after silencing critiques from the real world, they have to do the same to the cyberworld. the latter now is overpowering the real world and more effective to spread the words. whether believeable or not, the paps realise that it's negatively affecting their supports.

 

[scroobal]

Looks like TOC and E-Jay are sticking to their guns. Good on them.

 

[AhFook]

Fair comment, TOC! Take him on! Take the bastard on!

This Arrogant Clown thinks is he is now V K Nair LEE.

See how arrogant he was when he told the Sembawang peasants that if corpse water is good enough for him who are those peasants to complain!

 

[leetahbar]

who's gonna represent the defendants?

in the past record, my pet snake might succumb to PG without putting up any strong defence. perhaps this is the real meaning when pinky once said if there were too many opps in parliament, his job would be to "fix them". he isn't fixing them now. he leaves that to his dobermans or rotweilers to do it. sigh! there are more dogs than humans in parliament.

 

[HTOLAS]

Mr Vikram Nair said this in parliament where he is protected by parliamentary privilege - he can't be sued. His parliamentary colleagues can, though, refer him to the disciplinary committee to exact a penalty, like they did to JBJ many years ago for not declaring his "pecuniary interests" in a matter before he took part in a debate on it.

I wonder nobody brought up the unintentional or intentional attempt to defame CSM by equating his proposal to a Nigerian scam. If you look at the illustrious legal and business career background of CSM, the implications to all those organizations associated to him and of him being implied as a swindler or a intellectually inferior is immeasurable. I am wondering if there is any legal merit to raise a case against the accuser of CSM being involved in Nigerian scams.

 

[scroobal]

Also these are expected in any exchange or debate and I sure that CSM would not mind if these were said outside parliament.

Vikram is just thin skinned. He likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. He should stick to drinking water from tanks where dead bodies are found to display his brand of bravery.

Mr Vikram Nair said this in parliament where he is protected by parliamentary privilege - he can't be sued. His parliamentary colleagues can, though, refer him to the disciplinary committee to exact a penalty, like they did to JBJ many years ago for not declaring his "pecuniary interests" in a matter before he took part in a debate on it.

 

[myfoot123]

Also these are expected in any exchange or debate and I sure that CSM would not mind if these were said outside parliament.

Vikram is just thin skinned. He likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. He should stick to drinking water from tanks where dead bodies are found to display his brand of bravery.

He tried to act brave in front of his master in parliament and under TV. Unfortunately to him, the cyber world will scrutinise his piece of shit until he cry foul. He is nothing but maggot.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

Actually this is a standard PAP tactic..if dont like what they hear and read will just sue..why dont he type a reply and ask TOC to publish? if that does not silence his critics means its true...I believe that soon such gangster tactics will back fire and once the law suite is in place and it goes on trial, the incompetence and compliant Judiciary will be in greater spotlight... and it will be a real Kangaroo court...Vikram and the PAP will be even more exposed as everything he says will be under the microscope...

Go ahead and sue and exposed even more PAP shit

 

[Bigfuck]

Mr Vikram Nair said this in parliament where he is protected by parliamentary privilege - he can't be sued. His parliamentary colleagues can, though, refer him to the disciplinary committee to exact a penalty, like they did to JBJ many years ago for not declaring his "pecuniary interests" in a matter before he took part in a debate on it.

Something wrong here. He cannot be sued but he can sue. What kind of fuckup tyrannical law is this?
Is he above the law? Is there no one to stop him?

 

[Unrepented]

Maybe at home he drank and ponded his stomach with alcohol first, then go on stage......

lianbeng asked, "is he that ahneh who drank corpse water from rooftop tank?"

 

[toolanliao]

lianbeng asked, "is he that ahneh who drank corpse water from rooftop tank?"

he is also the one that says, "Don't focus too much on the 40 percent that didn't vote for you. We have to remember and keep in mind the interests of the 60 percent that did." all pap like to do is hit below the belt against all their opponents. this present batch all exhibit ungentlemanly behavior like their boss who commented that "WP has let Hougang voters down in its handling of Yaw's alleged affair".

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Responding to the Aljunied GRC MP in Parliament, Nair had said, "Maybe even the Nigerian scheme required you to put $10,000 upfront. But Mr Chen's scheme does not even require a short-term provision. It is not even a deficit for one year. No, no, no. It will pay for itself because it is an investment. So I would like him to explain how he expects these schemes to pay for themselves because, if they do, I will wholeheartedly support it."

Does Vikram dare to vote against his own party ?

 

[Bigfuck]

he is also the one that says, "Don't focus too much on the 40 percent that didn't vote for you. We have to remember and keep in mind the interests of the 60 percent that did." all pap like to do is hit below the belt against all their opponents. this present batch all exhibit ungentlemanly behavior like their boss who commented that "WP has let Hougang voters down in its handling of Yaw's alleged affair".

In the wrong ward, it could be 70% agst you with 30% asslickers. Remember well my words little boy.

 

[borom]

.......Vikram is granted protection against civil liability based on parliamentary privilege. ......

The most important lesson S'poreans should learn from these episodes of the 'The Family' and ilk suing people is : to elect as many opposition MP's as possible who dare to speak up and ask tough questions .Until the time comes when people wake up and deny them the 2/3 majority, its the duty of the opposition MP's to ask questions like what the TOC contributor is doing.

 

[HTOLAS]

The immunity granted to MPs speaking in parliament allows them to speak without fear of reprisal and harassment, and when fairly applied, is a good one. And it is up to an MP's peers to correct and where needed punish him. But as indicated in my example, Singaporean's refusal to elect a meaningful opposition has allowed the PAPzis to abuse this process, as they have with so many other aspects of politics in Singapore.

And they will continue to do this as long as they have more than 2/3 of the seats in parliament.

Something wrong here. He cannot be sued but he can sue. What kind of fuckup tyrannical law is this?
Is he above the law? Is there no one to stop him?