Singapore could not be an open society
-
If they keep on sueing, would anyone dare to tell them that they screwed up the pedestrian barriers that caused a death of a cyclist or that maybe the GICs are not doing as well as they tell us it is?
All those things would get me dumped in jail considering the fact that I cannot afford the expensive legal fees to defend myself. -
I am curious bro ... which particular law are you talking about ? ....Originally posted by SilverPal:The Prime ministar has been telling young singaporeans to be more politically aware and speak up. Ironically the same person has been sueing those who speak against him or his party.
You cannot possibly speak of improvements or correct mistakes if its against the law to identify problems or mentioning errors made by the policy makers as case study. Its like refusing to identify problems and assuming everything is rosy. No improvements are needed then.
And for some unfamthomable reason, the ruling party has never lost a case, I wonder why.
As long as the leeders are allergic to comments and criticism, we would never be able to speak out (other than behind obscure nicks like silverpal).
As for the currency crisis and economics due to Soros, could be a topic for discussion for another thread.
the one that says it's against the law to ID problems or mentioning errors ? ... -
For you to ID problems, you have to imply that someone made a mistake that you managed to see. When you mention it in public (even in a non confrontational manner) you have either implied that the person in question is incompetent or was intentional in the oversight. Both can get you sued because come people need to "protect their reputation".Originally posted by Fatum:I am curious bro ... which particular law are you talking about ? .... the one that says it's against the law to ID problems or mentioning errors ? ...
And in case you're wondering, personal opinions are fair game for defamation suits too. -
ah ... so you're actually implying that the defamation laws stifles whistle blowing ? ... I see ... but that's a world apart from saying that laws exist to Prohibit such things you know ... we're not north korea after all, people don't disappear at night eh ...Originally posted by SilverPal:For you to ID problems, you have to imply that someone made a mistake that you managed to see. When you mention it in public (even in a non confrontational manner) you have either implied that the person in question is incompetent or was intentional in the oversight. Both can get you sued because come people need to "protect their reputation".
And in case you're wondering, personal opinions are fair game for defamation suits too.
now don't get me wrong, I broadly agree with you that there is this climate of ... hmmm ... do I dare say, fear ? ... of speaking out ? ... Can we do better in this area ? yes, I think we certainly can ... leaving the examples of the suits brought by certain members of the ruling party against certain opposition figures aside (*blink blink ... OB markers ! ...
),a good example would be our dear friend Durai's successful suits against two earlier whistle blowers ... how independent is our judiciary ? ... well, that's fodder for another thread I guess .....
Defamation laws are a particular type of Tort laws, and it all depends on the laws and statutes of different countries of course, But while I am no lawyer, (my only encounter came from a couple of law electives I had to take), I supect personal opinions are not quite "fair game" actually. Politicians expect to take flak from left right and centre, it's something that they know comes with the job, members of the ruling party would be no exception. You can probably scold anyone of them, and their fathers and mothers for all you like in a coffeeshop somewhere, and entertain people with assertions of corruption and wrong doing too, but if you step onto a national platform and said similar things, well ... I would come after you too if It was me ... Defamation laws doesn't take into account "hurt feelings" ... it require two things, among others: that what was said was untrue, it must be clearly aimed at a particular person, with intent to damage his/her reputation.
(speaking of our dear friend Durai, because defamation relies on what was said about you being basically untrue, now that what was said about him is now shown to be actually true ... I wonder ... what happens now ? ... this would be an interesting time for our courts ..... *crosses fingers ... ) -
You've managed to put everything I said into 1 sentence!!!Originally posted by Fatum:ah ... so you're actually implying that the defamation laws stifles whistle blowing ? ... I see ... but that's a world apart from saying that laws exist to Prohibit such things you know ... we're not north korea after all, people don't disappear at night eh ...
now don't get me wrong, I broadly agree with you that there is this climate of ... hmmm ... do I dare say, fear ? ... of speaking out ? ... Can we do better in this area ? yes, I think we certainly can ... leaving the examples of the suits brought by certain members of the ruling party against certain opposition figures aside (*blink blink ... OB markers ! ... ),a good example would be our dear friend Durai's successful suits against two earlier whistle blowers ... how independent is our judiciary ? ... well, that's fodder for another thread I guess .....
Defamation laws are a particular type of Tort laws, and it all depends on the laws and statutes of different countries of course, But while I am no lawyer, (my only encounter came from a couple of law electives I had to take), I supect personal opinions are not quite "fair game" actually. Politicians expect to take flak from left right and centre, it's something that they know comes with the job, members of the ruling party would be no exception. You can probably scold anyone of them, and their fathers and mothers for all you like in a coffeeshop somewhere, and entertain people with assertions of corruption and wrong doing too, but if you step onto a national platform and said similar things, well ... I would come after you too if It was me ... Defamation laws doesn't take into account "hurt feelings" ... it require two things, among others: that what was said was untrue, it must be clearly aimed at a particular person, with intent to damage his/her reputation.
(speaking of our dear friend Durai, because defamation relies on what was said about you being basically untrue, now that what was said about him is now shown to be actually true ... I wonder ... what happens now ? ... this would be an interesting time for our courts ..... *crosses fingers ... )
-
Section from an article on the net based on a person's account at the George Soros forum:
.....There were two other little factoids that our press didn't mention either, but which I heard from someone who was present in the hall.
The first was that when the question as to whether he thought Singapore qualified as an open society was put to him, Soros answered "Obviously, Singapore does not qualify..." with hardly a second's thought. It came out with swift certainty.
The second was that the entire audience of 1,600 burst into applause as he said that.
"Now, why do Singaporeans do that?" my friend asked me as he described the scene.
I needed more than a second to think.
"Maybe," I felt my way forward, "they're applauding him for saying what they all feel but are afraid to say so themselves?"
My friend then thought for another second.
"Then, it reflects very badly on Singapore!" he concluded......
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-533.htm -
I was there at the talk.And the applause was thunderous.He said what many never could say in an open forum and the truth hurts.We are opening up slowly, but I hope we will get there someday.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:This Soros guy has been saying a lot of things which doesn't really benefit us. It causes a lot of debates and upset among the people.
This nation is on a path to greater openness, and you should have felt the pulse in the convention, especially when the SMU student panellist asked about Singapore's state of openness.We will inevitably move forward and open up, this nation's survival takes precedence over any partisan politics.And there are universal values which should not be ignored. -
You have to put into context that George Soros is not a politician or government official.
He is an investor/speculator in the financial markets.
The question posed to him about whether Singapore is an open society should be seen as just as seeking a personal opinion on his views.
Nothing more, nothing less. -
most humans are hypocrites to be exact.
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
The article sums up whatever is facing us right now, on one hand, we have this universal need for expression to fully exploit our talent, and on the other ,we have a straitjacket designed to tell us what sort of expression is allowed, and for what specified purpose.
Section from an article on the net based on a person's account at the George Soros forum:
.....There were two other little factoids that our press didn't mention either, but which I heard from someone who was present in the hall.
The first was that when the question as to whether he thought Singapore qualified as an open society was put to him, Soros answered "Obviously, Singapore does not qualify..." with hardly a second's thought. It came out with swift certainty.
The second was that the entire audience of 1,600 burst into applause as he said that.
"Now, why do Singaporeans do that?" my friend asked me as he described the scene.
I needed more than a second to think.
"Maybe," I felt my way forward, "they're applauding him for saying what they all feel but are afraid to say so themselves?"
My friend then thought for another second.
"Then, it reflects very badly on Singapore!" he concluded......
[b]http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-533.htm[/b]
Good governance should be more about the human development index, and not just material wealth, else we are breeding a generation of apathetic people who will participate in community development, if they feel it might favor them in some area in the future, and not through their own love for service. -
The focus is on the reaction.Originally posted by charlize:You have to put into context that George Soros is not a politician or government official.
He is an investor/speculator in the financial markets.
The question posed to him about whether Singapore is an open society should be seen as just as seeking a personal opinion on his views.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Whether or not the speaker is a politician, financier or even a mee kia seller is moot, the issue is that it was done on a large, well-covered platform, and in the context of the international global society. -
You mean the students' reaction?Originally posted by LazerLordz:The focus is on the reaction. Whether or not the speaker is a politician, financier or even a mee kia seller is moot, the issue is that it was done on a large, well-covered platform, and in the context of the international global society.
Aiya, they can cheer and applaud for all they want.
After the seminar, it's back to trying to ace that engineering midterm. -
economist magazine apologises to MM Lee.
they have agreed to pay damages and indemnify him for all costs incurred in connection with the disputed article.