Amnesty International Criticises Singapore
-
Oh well... nothing they can do about it..
Amnesty criticises S'pore's use of defamation suits
Rights group Amnesty International called on the Singapore government to stop using stringent laws and defamation suits to muzzle critics.
The call comes as Chee Soon Juan, leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), ends on Saturday his five-week jail term for failing to pay a S$5,000 ($3,250) fine for illegally speaking in public before elections in May.
"Amnesty International is concerned about the continuing use of restrictive laws and civil defamation suits in Singapore to penalise and silence peaceful critics of the government," the London-based rights watchdog said in a statement issued on its Web site.
Singapore bans public gatherings of more than four people without a police permit. Public speaking is also prohibited unless the speaker has been licensed by the government.
These laws, together with "politically motivated" defamation suits, have created in Singapore a "climate of political intimidation and self-censorship", and belie "the government's repeated claims that it is building an 'open society'", Amnesty International said.
Leaders of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) -- which has been in power since the city-state's independence in 1965 -- say such legal action is necessary to safeguard their reputations.
They have also filed defamation law suits against foreign media, most recently the Far Eastern Economic Review, while legal suits launched against opposition politicians have bankrupted Chee and veteran opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam.
Under Singapore's laws, bankrupts cannot contest elections.
Chee, one of Singapore's most vocal opposition politicians, is also facing a defamation suit launched by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew over an article in the SDP's newsletter.
He has been jailed five times since 1999 for speaking in public without a permit, and for questioning the independence of Singapore's judiciary. ($1 = 1.538 Singapore dollar) -
Our tailoring is very expensive.
-
Dr Chee is a gone case lah...... so lets say bye to him..... Chee, bye
-
what do we know, eh???
the judge in charge of the case should not continue in the defamation case.... of course, PAP, will do & can do anything to make him bankcrupt so he won't be able to run his party again.. Is this what you call democracy?
do PAP leaders need a license too when they speak in public or so?
come on, AMNESTY..... you have my support.. -
why amnesty international dont help chee to pay his fine?
he probably dont worth that much..... sigh... -
Did you know they have Zegna tailors specially flown in from Italy to custom make suits for one of our ministers? Any idea which minister is it?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Our tailoring is very expensive.
Hehehe -
dbl post
-
*yawn* What's new?
-
AI are deserving of respect. Let's take our hats off to them.
-
Does Amnesty International know the difference between Government and an individual?
Even CSJ knows that the Government cannot be defamed. He tried to use that as a defence.
He was sued for what he said about LKY and LSL, not what he said about the Govt.
Its LKY & LSL who sued him, not the Govt.
Amnesty Int'l too smart to critise LKY and LSL directly. -
Amnesty International has to remain neutral in its involvement, and to stay above the political fray so as to remain credible as a non-partisan Non-Governmental Organisation.Originally posted by tripwire:why amnesty international dont help chee to pay his fine?
he probably dont worth that much..... sigh...
Every human is worth something - including those who prefer to speak from the butt instead of from the brain. -
If those M in White is not doing any of those things that is being said, why they so scared to resort to this kind of actions.
-
you mean its wrong to send a man to jail.. when he breaks the law?Originally posted by jackc`:If those M in White is not doing any of those things that is being said, why they so scared to resort to this kind of actions. -
Some things are wrong, even without the Law saying that it is so you can see that it is wrong.
But here, there are quite a few things that are wrong, because the "Law" says that it is so.
Not everything considered ILLEGAL, ir really wrong....
and not everything "wrong" is really illegal...
Question is; WHO's laws are these?? -
NO suffer fools!!!
-
I wonder what will guys do if you are someone that has a reputation, famous and has a belief of integrity. Your requires yourself to be clean and so you have done so for almost your entire life.
Suddenly out of nowhere, some one made a stupid comment about you publicly and has no proof at all. What's more that comments swept away your entire life's effort of integrity. You will accept that?
Will you then says that the law shouldn't have defamation?
LEts make an analogy. A shop keep who has faithfully served a boss for many years. Suddenly a guy stand in front of the shop giving out leaflets saying you have stolen some money from the shop. Everyone starts to talk. Will that shopkeeper run out and scold that guy and to stop him from continuing? Or will he just stand down there and look and tell himself that he has done nothing wrong and don't care about it?
Which will you choose? I will definitely choose the first option.
The difference with the first example is that guy will have the money to sue him until that guy go bankrupt and the later doesn't. -
Taking more pot shots?
Try better
-
Wah, now challenging the judicial system huh? LoLOriginally posted by ShutterBug:Some things are wrong, even without the Law saying that it is so you can see that it is wrong.
But here, there are quite a few things that are wrong, because the "Law" says that it is so.
Not everything considered ILLEGAL, ir really wrong....
and not everything "wrong" is really illegal...
Question is; WHO's laws are these?? -
The PEMA is a law that is archaic and irrelevant.
-
LEts make an analogy. A shop keep who has faithfully served a boss for many years. Suddenly a guy stand in front of the shop giving out leaflets saying you have stolen some money from the shop. Everyone starts to talk. Will that shopkeeper run out and scold that guy and to stop him from continuing? Or will he just stand down there and look and tell himself that he has done nothing wrong and don't care about it?
thats when u talk about a shop keep who faithfully served a boss.
rather then the ONE u should the ONE in and not a faithful shopkeeper.
that will be a different story.
if the ONE is in the story. he most probably will hide his crimes and try to make everyone around the shop point fingers at him with his M in White.
and most sillyporeans will just say wah look at that guy hes bad dont follow his footstep and continue to support the ONE and only shop that has 7% GST -
politics work differently from business.Originally posted by NoSuchPerson:I wonder what will guys do if you are someone that has a reputation, famous and has a belief of integrity. Your requires yourself to be clean and so you have done so for almost your entire life.
Suddenly out of nowhere, some one made a stupid comment about you publicly and has no proof at all. What's more that comments swept away your entire life's effort of integrity. You will accept that?
Will you then says that the law shouldn't have defamation?
LEts make an analogy. A shop keep who has faithfully served a boss for many years. Suddenly a guy stand in front of the shop giving out leaflets saying you have stolen some money from the shop. Everyone starts to talk. Will that shopkeeper run out and scold that guy and to stop him from continuing? Or will he just stand down there and look and tell himself that he has done nothing wrong and don't care about it?
Which will you choose? I will definitely choose the first option.
The difference with the first example is that guy will have the money to sue him until that guy go bankrupt and the later doesn't. -
I think you are defaming someone here, you mean he did crimes? You have proof? I think its easier to defame someone then to really find clues? NATO.Originally posted by kopikid:thats when u talk about a shop keep who faithfully served a boss.
rather then the ONE u should the ONE in and not a faithful shopkeeper.
that will be a different story.
if the ONE is in the story. he most probably will hide his crimes and try to make everyone around the shop point fingers at him with his M in White.
and most sillyporeans will just say wah look at that guy hes bad dont follow his footstep and continue to support the ONE and only shop that has 7% GST -
When you control the media, and ban publications that do not speak favorably of you, its easy to make everyone think that you are the one being defamed when people tell the truth about you.Originally posted by NoSuchPerson:I think you are defaming someone here, you mean he did crimes? You have proof? I think its easier to defame someone then to really find clues? NATO.
for example, read the book "Singapore: The Ultimate Island" found ONLY in NUS. and its only for reference, NOT for borrowing. -
That's a fair statement.Originally posted by Lefleche:When you control the media, and ban publications that do not speak favorably of you, its easy to make everyone think that you are the one being defamed when people tell the truth about you.
for example, read the book "Singapore: The Ultimate Island" found ONLY in NUS. and its only for reference, NOT for borrowing.
http://www.refresher.com/!singapore2.html
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/asiarightsjournal/rerceretnam_Article.htm
http://www.unl.edu/scarlet/v5n33/v5n33qa.html
Draw your own conclusions. -
I think I agree with you about the banning of media. Still when there is no proof, you are defaming someone. As the law says, all the innocent until proven otherwise. So before you find some proof, don't defame ppl. Its irresponsible and reasonable and you get sued too.Originally posted by Lefleche:When you control the media, and ban publications that do not speak favorably of you, its easy to make everyone think that you are the one being defamed when people tell the truth about you.
for example, read the book "Singapore: The Ultimate Island" found ONLY in NUS. and its only for reference, NOT for borrowing.
I still think that everyone is merely accusing someone because they feel angry or feel unjustified BUT STILL you cannot defame someone.
Prove me wrong, see you in the court and bring forth evidence to the judge.