Dr Chee Soon Juan and defamation suits
-
Please do enlighten me. What did Dr Chee said/written to get the defamation suits directed his way? I tried googling but it was not easy to find them.
-
You will never find it why ?Originally posted by korusu:Please do enlighten me. What did Dr Chee said/written to get the defamation suits directed his way? I tried googling but it was not easy to find them.
Because what Chee said and written - got defamation suit - is because he does not based on fact . He have totally no fact to back up all his statement .
That is why he is been sue !!!
When you accuse of people of crimes without any prove or evidence - that is defamation !!! thus need to pay damages !! -
haha...that reminds me of Atobe...Originally posted by storywolf:You will never find it why ?
Because what Chee said and written - got defamation suit - is because he does not based on fact . He have totally no fact to back up all his statement .
That is why he is been sue !!!
When you accuse of people of crimes without any prove or evidence - that is defamation !!! thus need to pay damages !!
-
Er this does not make sense... If Dr Chee had said something totally absurd, then we should all gang up and laugh at him. If he said something that is questionable, then i suppose that those people whom he defamed should present evidence to prove Dr Chee wrong. Either way, whatever he said should be available for people to judge whether or not they are defamatory in nature?
-
1st Case: During Asian Financial Crisis, Government pledged US$5Billion in loans to Indonesia (so did Japan) if the money from the IMF package ran out. Eventually our money was never in need and wasn't loaned out.
In 2001 elections, Loudhailer Chee asked GCT where is the money they lent to Suharto. Chee accused GCT and LKY of misleading parliament into loaning SG$18Billion to Suharto.
2nd Case: In 2006, the Chee were sued for accusing Government of covering up the NKF issue and that LKY and LHL ran the government corruptly like NKF.
According to organisations like Amnesty International, government sues political critics.
These does not seem to be criticisms to me, more like baseless accusations. -
Just an interesting fact - Chee was not only sue by PAP !!! he is sue by eveyone !!!
The SDP, headed by Chee, was later sued by Chiam See Tong, for insinuating that Chiam was acting on behalf of the ruling party. SDP lost and was ordered, with others, to pay Chiam damages of $150,000. -
So from 1st case, the conclusion is that GCT and LKY did not mislead the parliament into lending 18bil to Suharto.Originally posted by kramnave:1st Case: During Asian Financial Crisis, Government pledged US$5Billion in loans to Indonesia (so did Japan) if the money from the IMF package ran out. Eventually our money was never in need and wasn't loaned out.
In 2001 elections, Loudhailer Chee asked GCT where is the money they lent to Suharto. Chee accused GCT and LKY of misleading parliament into loaning SG$18Billion to Suharto.
2nd Case: In 2006, the Chee were sued for accusing Government of covering up the NKF issue and that LKY and LHL ran the government corruptly like NKF.
According to organisations like Amnesty International, government sues political critics.
These does not seem to be criticisms to me, more like baseless accusations.
From 2nd case, LKY and LHL did not cover up NKF issue and did not run the government in a corrupt manner akin to NKF.
Ah thanks indeed but it would be nicer if we can know exactly what he said. Sometimes, the media describes Dr Chee's action in a negative light without highlighting exactly what he had said. -
Could think of any 3 claims he/SDP made:
1. Transfer of reserves from govt to 5th schedule companies which are owned directly by the govt and not any external companies as he tried to put in.
2. SDP was the only party that spoke up for James Gomez.
3. SDP opposition youth wing is the only one in S'pore.
The 1st might be technical but 2 and 3 don't sound like ignorant or accidental, more like malicious. -
I think he said.. "where is the money!?? where is the money!!?" at the back of a lorry..Originally posted by korusu:So from 1st case, the conclusion is that GCT and LKY did not mislead the parliament into lending 18bil to Suharto.
From 2nd case, LKY and LHL did not cover up NKF issue and did not run the government in a corrupt manner akin to NKF.
Ah thanks indeed but it would be nicer if we can know exactly what he said. Sometimes, the media describes Dr Chee's action in a negative light without highlighting exactly what he had said. -
Ahh my friend the reason that I kept on asking for his exact words is because I did not want to entertain the possibility of been mislead by the conclusion drawn by other people. Sometimes the media has a knack of drawing its own conclusion from seemingly innocuous sources...Originally posted by Ravenclaw82:Could think of any 3 claims he/SDP made:
1. Transfer of reserves from govt to 5th schedule companies which are owned directly by the govt and not any external companies as he tried to put in.
2. SDP was the only party that spoke up for James Gomez.
3. SDP opposition youth wing is the only one in S'pore.
The 1st might be technical but 2 and 3 don't sound like ignorant or accidental, more like malicious. -
Well technically speaking there is nothing wrong with asking "where is the money"... Did he accuse the govt (Goh and Lee) of lending 18bil to Suharto without consent from the parliament?Originally posted by mhcampboy:I think he said.. "where is the money!?? where is the money!!?" at the back of a lorry.. -
Pardon me for asking, how is anybody going to prove what he said then without using any media ?Originally posted by korusu:Well technically speaking there is nothing wrong with asking "where is the money"... Did he accuse the govt (Goh and Lee) of lending 18bil to Suharto without consent from the parliament? -
Its a form of defamation actually...Originally posted by korusu:Well technically speaking there is nothing wrong with asking "where is the money"... Did he accuse the govt (Goh and Lee) of lending 18bil to Suharto without consent from the parliament?
Even normal ppl like me and you example... you said something which implies something i did not do... i can sue....
just tat ppl dun have money to do tat...
-
I apologise for causing confusion. What I meant was that been able to read his own actual word rather than depending on the conclusion of his words drawn by other people. If he was misquoted then he could make a statement to clear that up. Sometimes people with vested interests would draw a much different conclusion to further their own causes.
-
Believe me, if he was wronged, he would have clarified it on the SDP website.Originally posted by korusu:I apologise for causing confusion. What I meant was that been able to read his own actual word rather than depending on the conclusion of his words drawn by other people. If he was misquoted then he could make a statement to clear that up. Sometimes people with vested interests would draw a much different conclusion to further their own causes. -
SDP also posted FAKE pictures of Burma massacre on their website.Originally posted by Ravenclaw82:Could think of any 3 claims he/SDP made:
1. Transfer of reserves from govt to 5th schedule companies which are owned directly by the govt and not any external companies as he tried to put in.
2. SDP was the only party that spoke up for James Gomez.
3. SDP opposition youth wing is the only one in S'pore.
The 1st might be technical but 2 and 3 don't sound like ignorant or accidental, more like malicious.
When they were found out and told that those pictures were from Thailand instead, they took down the pictures and did not even apologise.
This show the kind of people they are - just humtum anyhow as long as make PAP look bad. -
He was a lecturer before - and he have got this degree -thus he should have known better then all other that if he say or display or print some information - it must be reference to crediable source !!!Originally posted by GPSg:SDP also posted FAKE pictures of Burma massacre on their website.
When they were found out and told that those pictures were from Thailand instead, they took down the pictures and did not even apologise.
This show the kind of people they are - just humtum anyhow as long as make PAP look bad.
Time and again he just claim things which have no reference !!! and when question on his source, method of calculation ? he is totally lost as to where it come from or how he get the figure or what formual he uses !!!
Thus he got sue for for all the defamation suits is in fact - he himself ask for it !!! -
You are mistaken, my friend. Under the law of evidence in a civil suit such as the defamation case, it is the party alleging something that has to adduce evidence to support his allegation. Chee made an allegation. So he thus had to produce proof. If he could produce the proof to back up his allegation, he would have been entitled to the defence of justification and not be liable foe defamation.Originally posted by korusu:Er this does not make sense... If Dr Chee had said something totally absurd, then we should all gang up and laugh at him. If he said something that is questionable, then i suppose that those people whom he defamed should present evidence to prove Dr Chee wrong. Either way, whatever he said should be available for people to judge whether or not they are defamatory in nature?
There is no necessity for the Plaintiff to prove anything at all........ -
... how convenient... use procedures for what is normal for individuals... and apply it to people that can enact despotic laws and use police and military might to ensure that the evidence does not come out...
... how convenient, take public money and in this case... take massive amounts of public money then conveniently claim they do not have to be accountable and transparent...
see: The onus is on public officials to explain, and come up with the evidence, not sue.
Columns By Andrew PK Yap
Founder of www.casinogamblingprevention.com
Public officials are there to serve the people. They are taking public money to pay themselves... [Read More!] -
Hmm very interesting i have always wondered why would the(this) government, care so much about its reputation? Not like its a corporation or something its job is to protect its citizens not to market itself (hence need to prevent their reputation from damage). False claims will be uncovered eventually why hound the poor fella
-
Exactly!Originally posted by ulquiorra87:Hmm very interesting i have always wondered why would the(this) government, care so much about its reputation? Not like its a corporation or something its job is to protect its citizens not to market itself (hence need to prevent their reputation from damage). False claims will be uncovered eventually why hound the poor fella
All must remember the three NKF whistleblowers:
Archie Ong
Piragasam Singaravelu
Tan Kiat Noi
No protection for whistleblowers. No restitution process for the victims of dafamation suits. Is there no law of restitution in Singapore?