Singapore student forced to shut down blog
-
Oh my, did you just defame somebody in this post?Originally posted by timothytsgsg:I think he shd just stay in US and quit his scholarship anyway. Since the damn system is flawed, why continue in it?
If he has the money and can afford the consequences, I'd rather he quitted. Philip Yeo is a goddamn idiot anyway. And also, since he's in the US and his Uni supported him- as someone here has stated, any defamation suit cannot harm him.
In effect, the US consitution also protects him.
-
He would be coming back to sg right? After his scholarship? so that means he can be sued, yes?
Even if he cannot be sued, they'll probably take his scholarship away and get him to pay back the money due. That is probably a big factor....
Not just losing scholarship....
I think.... -
I think the courts would have to see if his words constituted slander with a malicious intent or was he just stating his opinions.Originally posted by lwflee:Ah...It gets more and more interesting.
While imo, defamation laws in the US are some of the most liberal in the world, i would have been tempted to take the actions the blogger took. After all, he is a student and we know that students gererally live off baked beans and sausages...
I would like to see him meet the threats of legal action head on though. Anyone know if Legal aid is available for defending defamtion actions in the US? What about singapore (I presume not)?
There's a line drawn between intentional slander and the expression of one's belief..and in civil cases like that, i think the federal, or the state circuit courts would prolly lean to the latter. -
Legally speaking, the action was committed in the States, which is important when you determine the location of the said individual.Can you sue a man who has broken no laws abroad,when he was in US, in a SG court, for an alleged local offence committed in America?Sounds implausible anyway..Moreover,I don not think we have any jurisdiction over anything done in the States.Originally posted by Werewolf:He would be coming back to sg right? After his scholarship? so that means he can be sued, yes?
Even if he cannot be sued, they'll probably take his scholarship away and get him to pay back the money due. That is probably a big factor....
Not just losing scholarship....
I think....
Being a Singapore citizen should not automatically make him a criminal..just like if I were to own a gun in America, where it is legal..can the local courts prosecute me on arrival for a retroactive crime of possession of a deadly firearm which did not even take place on SG soil? -
Actually, i think we are concerned with libel, instead of slander. Genrally, Libel is written while slander is spoken.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I think the courts would have to see if his words constituted slander with a malicious intent or was he just stating his opinions.
There's a line drawn between intentional slander and the expression of one's belief..and in civil cases like that, i think the federal, or the state circuit courts would prolly lean to the latter. -
My bad.Originally posted by lwflee:Actually, i think we are concerned with libel, instead of slander. Genrally, Libel is written while slander is spoken.
-
I believe that the author is liable from legal action taken by the person the remark was directed at, no matter where the person might be.
Saying that the person is in another country when he made the comment, and thus protected by that country's laws is not correct. In that case, people who are overseas are free to shoot their mouths off knowing that they can get away with everything.
The point that was omitted was that the comment was directed at a Singaporean entity. That makes is posible for that entity to sue using Singapore laws.
No sense. -
i tink correct or not is a very personal issue here rite??Originally posted by EXCO:I believe that the author is liable from legal action taken by the person the remark was directed at, no matter where the person might be.
Saying that the person is in another country when he made the comment, and thus protected by that country's laws is not correct. In that case, people who are overseas are free to shoot their mouths off knowing that they can get away with everything.
The point that was omitted was that the comment was directed at a Singaporean entity. That makes is posible for that entity to sue using Singapore laws.
No sense.
for some, they might feel it`s ok u know?
anyway i tot blogs are all expressions of personal opinion
someone ever told me ` a blog is just an online diary that can be read by other ppl`
so the credibility is not there rite??
then why would philip yeo wanna do such a bo liao thing to sue a blog that so called had `no credit ` to it.. not that the blog was registered for political use??
in my sense, i call for philip yeo to be over the board
my stand is with the student
it aint wrong to state`fact` and `opinions`
it`s entirely up to the reader to face the accuracy of the posts in the blog..
sueing a person for defamation on a blog is a great mockery in itself
i had a great luff at A*STAR for it`s childish acts -
this whole fiasco is going to hurt IN2015
-
i dont think philip yeo sued anyone. he just asked to speak with the 2 guys.Originally posted by BaByBoY:i tink correct or not is a very personal issue here rite??
for some, they might feel it`s ok u know?
anyway i tot blogs are all expressions of personal opinion
someone ever told me ` a blog is just an online diary that can be read by other ppl`
so the credibility is not there rite??
then why would philip yeo wanna do such a bo liao thing to sue a blog that so called had `no credit ` to it.. not that the blog was registered for political use??
in my sense, i call for philip yeo to be over the board
my stand is with the student
it aint wrong to state`fact` and `opinions`
it`s entirely up to the reader to face the accuracy of the posts in the blog..
sueing a person for defamation on a blog is a great mockery in itself
i had a great luff at A*STAR for it`s childish acts -
He didn't, but according to the blogger, it was certainly more than "asking to speak to someone"; they were threats of litigation.
Also, would it not be logical that one is subjected to the laws of the ocuntry one is in or is alleged to have done something illegal? (eg. Lee Kwan Yew v Devan Nair was certainly not litigated in Singapore and Singapore law was certainly not in issue - LKY did not succeed by the way lol ) In this case, although the person threatening litigation is in SIngapore, the allegedly defamatory words were written and in the US. But then could it be argued that because he gave consent to the interview to be published in a singapore newspaper, he might be liable in singapore?
sigh I am totally ignorant of the intricacies of international law and this is giving me a headache. Any student/practitioner of international law out there willing to have a go? -
Lee Kuan Yew versus Devan Nair was fought in a Canadian court of law, and the case was thrown out because the defendant was resident in Canada, so the jurisdiction would be Canadian.Originally posted by lwflee:He didn't, but according to the blogger, it was certainly more than "asking to speak to someone"; they were threats of litigation.
Also, would it not be logical that one is subjected to the laws of the ocuntry one is in or is alleged to have done something illegal? (eg. Lee Kwan Yew v Devan Nair was certainly not litigated in Singapore and Singapore law was certainly not in issue - LKY did not succeed by the way lol ) In this case, although the person threatening litigation is in SIngapore, the allegedly defamatory words were written and in the US. But then could it be argued that because he gave consent to the interview to be published in a singapore newspaper, he might be liable in singapore?
sigh I am totally ignorant of the intricacies of international law and this is giving me a headache. Any student/practitioner of international law out there willing to have a go?
For this case, perhaps SG might have some say until an actual lawsuit is filed, then the argument might take on a new dimension because unlike Mr Nair, the blogger is a citizen of SG, but was resident in America when he blogged.
The stuff just gets deeper and deeper..if only his words were just construed as his own opinions and be respected and left as such..Sigh. -
Hey, why is "country" censored?!
I hope he doesn't come back to Singapore! Then problem solved! He can then give us internet users the lowdown on A*STAR's and Mr. Yeo's competence (or lack thereof).
Bad move by Mr Yeo, i think. His strategy backfired! -
I think the local courts will deem the dispute a personal quabble and
ignore it.
It's like a Singaporean staying overseas and writing graffiti on a foreign university wall (not a foreign mass media) on someone Y and some Singaporeans here decide to go take a look and even comment further. Y in Singapore sent someone to copy and use it as evidence against the writer.
If there is an offence committed, where was it committed, the local courts would ask first. Here or abroad?
Obviously, it was abroad and whose jurisdiction is that? Certainly not local courts. And if foreign courts, what offence was committed?
-
i noticed many of you are very particular about freedom of speech.
freedom of speech is hardly a free-for-all. we must be responsible for what we say or write, especially if it concerns someone's reputation. i am not writing to defend anyone in particular.
lets say if someone has written something negative about you somewhere (blog, papers etc) wouldnt you want to seek redress? or do you choose to keep quiet? -
This particular incident is only the tip of the iceberg don't you see?
If this Chua scholar case has been highlighted 39 years ago, and the highly promoted meritocratic assumption that scholars will solve all our problems could perhaps have critically debated in parliament, some of the problems we are currently struggling with could have been avoided.
The principal assumption of our leaders is our various scholars or madarins are the highly educated elites or scholars and will solve our problems on the sole judgmental belief by our one-man leader of their possession of a piece of paper or academic grades.
Had there been an thorough debate on meritocracy, Singaporeans could have uncovered such talent or leadership assumption as rubbish and too narrow-minded placing the future of the judgmental fate of one man or a few scholars.
Many of the current problems were easily traced to this narrow judgmental approach of over-relying on scholars which at the end may be to serve the political agenda or interests of the incumbent party in power.
If Chua has assumed position of importance without being checked in time now, we may end up having our future decision makers of his like causing future racism conflagration and conflicts.
Our many scholars are being employed at high costs but as witnessed in the Asian financial crisis and last two recessions, they were helpless and unable to do anything except to wait out the world economic downturn to save our jobs.
It is clearly proven that our scholars have yet to come up with cohesive national master economic plan aimed at providing coordination and guidance to all including university researches, investments incentivisation and upgrading our economic competitiveness. Look at the 20 problems of autocracy as posted in another thread.
They have totally failed to solve the problems among others such as bureaucracy, non-implementation of growth triangles and non-implementation of value-adding economic plans .
Singapore has run up the whole civil service wage costs to three times of what it used to be. Just compare civil service's direct costs with the outsourced costs in recent tenders, and it will be very clear that civil service has been over-blown to sky-high prices and costs beyond imagination. But everything is hush-hush as no figures will be released on such comparisons.
Everything in terms of salary administration and exclusive remuneration and reward schemes for scholars appeared to be conducted in an irrational manner against established pricniples or industry practice.
Many of you will probably remember ministers telling the people back in the 1980s that pensionable civil servants were outdated practice and therefore pension schemes for civil servants were abolished and converted to CPF schemes to lower costs and increase competitiveness.
However, irrationally and within a short time after abolishing this civil service pension scheme, in a 180 degree about-turn a pension scheme out of the blue was introduced to pay ministers at 2/3 of last drawn salaries for life after two terms of office on the ground that this will induce good people to come forward to stand for election and become ministers as if the ministers did not know that they were at the same time trying to GRC to stop potential candidates to stand for election or to serve the country.
MM Lee still believed in the old theory that scholars and high pays to ministers and senior civil servants will solve all our problems. He went around recently to tell the Malaysian ministers that it is better to pay MPs and Ministers high salaries to avoid corruption.
The facts speak for themselves that benchmarking the ministers' pays to the highest earning boss-worker category based on some pre-conceived and the about-turn in re-introducing the outdated pension schemes to pay the retired ministers and MPs for life, were major mistakes of his presumptuous leadership.
Consequently the golden handshakes to the ministers and MPs would be a big burden on the economy as it would be costing national coffer some S$1,000,000,000.00 as posted earlier in relevant thread.
Assumptions or judgementsl governance is clearly without accountability and devoid of transparent processes. Such a governance has caused Singapore dearly with complete sheet of wool pulled over citizens' very eyes. The decision on casino was also made on one-sided presentation of job creations without giving corresponding job and investment losses due to negative impacts as posted in the relevant thread. This kind of leadership assumption is based on the over-simplistic that "without casino the economy will be worse off".
No wonder the Nalaysian PM Badawi was quick to rebut MM Lee's presumptuousness that Malaysians don't believe in the crap about high salaries as a means to check or prevent corruption. He said integrity is the most important factor and that is what counts in Malaysia.
So it is clear that our leaders have totally forgotten such factor or quality as integrity and have told the world that in our system ministers are vulnerable to corruptions.
Perhaps it is the people having no opinions which is at the end the primary cause of our system. They have unthinkingly allowed our presumptuous leadership leaders to make all kinds of policies or decisions without the rightful checks or accountability to the people.
No wonder Rmmul's Law says that a government is most likely to murder its own citizens offering the least resistance ...Think about the risk of accepting the cure-all meritocratic assumptions that has already brought us the high costs of the whole government. Can citizens be so easy any more to allow this kind of assumptions without opinions. How to save its future from such assumptions and solve our many problems ..if there is still a future. (Chen JiaHao corrected to Chua, mistake regretted) -
what if that something "negative" is a fact or a truth?Originally posted by dragg:i noticed many of you are very particular about freedom of speech.
freedom of speech is hardly a free-for-all. we must be responsible for what we say or write, especially if it concerns someone's reputation. i am not writing to defend anyone in particular.
lets say if someone has written something negative about you somewhere (blog, papers etc) wouldnt you want to seek redress? or do you choose to keep quiet? -
1. Yes you are right. The UK's system is hardly free for all and imo it works very well in striking a balance btw free speech and protection of an individuals reputation. SIngapore has long departed from that system.Originally posted by dragg:i noticed many of you are very particular about freedom of speech.
1. freedom of speech is hardly a free-for-all. we must be responsible for what we say or write, especially if it concerns someone's reputation. i am not writing to defend anyone in particular.
2. lets say if someone has written something negative about you somewhere (blog, papers etc) wouldnt you want to seek redress? or do you choose to keep quiet?
2. I would. Because i am human and i tend to be emotional about such things. Luckily for ppl, the law prevents me from suppressing free speech unreasonably simply because i have the money to hire lawyers to fire off letters filled with legal speak. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Chua Cheng Zhan was the scholar from Northwestern who posted the racist blog; Chen Jiahao was the former PhD scholar from University of Illinois who commented on the grade policies of A*Star.
If Chen has assumed position of importance without being checked in some ways there is no doubt that his harsh thinking on racism might lead to conflagration and conflicts. -
Sometimes, the powers that be love to deem anything objectionable to their viewpoints as negative and libellous.Originally posted by dragg:i noticed many of you are very particular about freedom of speech.
freedom of speech is hardly a free-for-all. we must be responsible for what we say or write, especially if it concerns someone's reputation. i am not writing to defend anyone in particular.
lets say if someone has written something negative about you somewhere (blog, papers etc) wouldnt you want to seek redress? or do you choose to keep quiet?
We do not have the luxury of the Bill Of Rights or a culture that is more open-minded and less sensitive to protect our right to comment.
Freedom of speech, granted, is not a free-for-all thing, but where does the curtailment of your own right to comment and observe begin and where does that slippery path take you?
Stalinism thats where.. -
duplicated.
-
Thanks for the correction.Originally posted by Tuatau:Chua Cheng Zhan was the scholar from Northwestern who posted the racist blog; Chen Jiahao was the former PhD scholar from University of Illinois who commented on the grade policies of A*Star. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
You brought up a cogent point, though. There is a need for the Public Service Commission to evaluate their scholar selection system. Grades are no longer a good yardstick by which to judge the quality of scholars. People who tend to focus on grades tend to be result-oriented with high IQ and hence are usually not people-oriented with high EQ as well. And as those among us who have had working experience may have noticed, it is usually the people with higher EQ who tend to make better leaders.
Thanks for the correction. -
I really don't see how the "freedom of speech" enters into this argument. The issue is one person posted a negative opinion of an organisation that is giving him money to study. Can we expect anything less than what this organisation (and it's leadership) had chosen to respond? This issue has very very little to do with freedom speech. Even in the country with the various amendments, one has to be careful with what they say because of lawsuits. What's new???
-
Yes we can. Well, at least I can. I expect the person invovled to state its view openly in a public forum. If the person concerned feels that the blogger is spreading malicious falsehoods, then say why he thinks the allegations are false, and which allegations he thinks are false. He should then give the Blogger a chance to retract his statements.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I really don't see how the "freedom of speech" enters into this argument. The issue is one person posted a negative opinion of an organisation that is giving him money to study. Can we expect anything less than what this organisation (and it's leadership) had chosen to respond? This issue has very very little to do with freedom speech. Even in the country with the various amendments, one has to be careful with what they say because of lawsuits. What's new???
If you read the blogs, it would appear that The person concerned did not reply to the blogger's request for more information on the allegation of defamation; The blogger doesn't know specifically how he has been defamatory.
And yes, i agree with you that there is nothing wrong with a person taking legal action to seek redress. However, i know that Singapore's defamation laws are cr ap. There is therefore the danger that the blogger would not get what a normal person would call a fair trial.