Freedom of Speech vs Freedom to Slander
-
There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to slander.
Freedom of speech:-
An example was during a parliamentary debate as reported in the press and watched on News, there was a exchanged between opposition political party MP Low Tk. He stood up and queried on behalf of his constituents whether did Mas Selamat died in custody for such were the rumours that were floated around.
He did the right thing in expressing the freedom of speech. He was given that priviledge before the govt, but at the same time, he qualified that statement that it was only a rumour, unsubstantiated.
When asked in return by MHA Wong if he believed in the rumour, he replied in the negative and sat back down, and asked no more, fully satisfied with the answer.
This is how freedom of speech should be. Dare to ask responsibily, but qualify your statement with intelligence and rationality first. And when given the facts or faced with the truth, accept it gracefully and back down, do not cause anymore grandstanding performance.
Freedom to slander.
An example would be CSJ slandering the govt on the alleged mismanagement of our reserves. He had no facts or even a shred of evidence to back up his words. Despite the authorities answers, he still continued to harp on it without any evidence in his newletters and the internet, causing a division and rift amongst the People having doubts, losing trust and confidence with the authorities who had done nothing wrong except to serve the People faithfully daily. Such actions harm the social fabric of our society.
Singapore welcomes freedom of speech and criticism. BUT NO ONE, not even yourself, would welcome freedom to slander, to lie, to speak half truths, and get away scot free, using 'freedom of speech' as an excuse.
So please, do not confuse freedom of speech with freedom to slander. Politically ambitious figures or anarchists often do.
-
That is true. Freedom of speech is required in a free society.
But since everything can be abused, there should be regulation guarding against slander, lies, inciting hatred as well.
But these "regulations" can also be abused to prevent real freedom of speech.
That is the problem.
-
As the other thread alleging that i am a PAP employee is locked, I will take this opportunity here to clarify myself.
Anyone can hate me for my views expressed in various threads. There is no need to fear me. I state here categorically i am not from the PAP, or have any links to them or to the authorities. I have never even step into a community centre, let alone attend National Day Parades.
I have no business ties with any state owned companies or even their subsidiaries, nor had benefitted in any way from their largesees, if there were any in the first place. The only benefits i had enjoyed from the current administration are those that are enjoyed by every citizen - schools, roads, transportation, homes, etc.
This post is not written for those who hate my views, for they will not believe it anyway.
This post is written for those who are truly from PAP, or enforcement agencies. My purpose is to show that i hold no power nor weld any influence from authorities. I have no wish to allude that I am some PAP elite member or from enforcement agencies.
I am a nobody. Just an ordinary citizen, but invested with a power through my birthright as a Singaporean citizen as everyone is, to defend and protect my country and its people from harm inflicted by those that sought to divide us, by rational discussions thru engagement, and if necessary, using the authorised channels of enforcement against pepertrators and agents of harm.
So there is no need to fear me or make allegations against me. The only person you need to fear is yourself, for you are a human and given a conscience. A conscience to discern what is right and what is wrong not only for yourself, but for our society whom we share a living space, with the past that sacrificed much for us, present and future generations to come
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
That is true. Freedom of speech is required in a free society.
But since everything can be abused, there should be regulation guarding against slander, lies, inciting hatred as well.
But these "regulations" can also be abused to prevent real freedom of speech.
That is the problem.
There is a remedy for victims of slander and lies.....sue for defamation -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
There is a remedy for victims of slander and lies.....sue for defamation
Only those with ''thin skin'' - and are highly strung with guilt - will deny anyone the opportunity of 'Fair Comment" on any issues, and will consistently sue for some imaginary slander that is purely self-inflicted injury. -
Please... there is no freedom of speech in SG...
-
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
Please... there is no freedom of speech in SG...
There is freedom of speech in Singapore, however it is only restricted to the losers running the country. The old arrogant loser lky is enjoying his freedom of speech. Any time, any where, if he feels like it he can say and express himself freely about anyone, anything, any country, any politicians.
-
Lee Kuan Yew is afraid of people criticising him.
He is very scared of criticism.
He likes people to praise him.
For example Lee Kuan Yew doesn't like below article:
Lee Kwan Yew: a ratbag to the end
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/
What a fucking bastard, that Lee Kuan Yew.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Lee Kuan Yew is afraid of people criticising him.
He is very scared of criticism.
He likes people to praise him.
For example Lee Kuan Yew doesn't like below article:
Lee Kwan Yew: a ratbag to the end
Somehow, about this i can't help but find him suffering from some kind of sickness, disorder or whatsoever. Perhaps, the psychologists could share with us about it.
-
Lee's record on human rights is poor. He, like other autocrats in the region, demeans his people by labeling liberties of press and academic freedom as Western conceits that are not conducive to "Asian" societies. This mentality -- culturalist bordering on racist -- set up one of the more enduring intellectual hoaxes of the 1990s, namely that there exist "Asian values" (as opposed to Western or Judeo-Christian values, presumably, though his argument was never coherent). And these values, funnily enough, seem to absolve people such as Lee for oppressive behavior -- as long as an economic return is delivered.
Lee's legacy of authoritarianism lives on. This week saw the banning of a documentary about a long-time political prisoner in Singapore, Said Zahari. Suffice it to say that Singapore's credibility is shaky if it can't face up to events of 30 years ago and cites social order as a pretext for shutting down debate.http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2007/04/14/2003356611
+++++++++++++++++
Well said, well written, Taipei Times.
-
I wonder how long Lee Kuan Yew can last in Taiwan politics.
I give him 30 seconds at the most.
Can't even speak chinese properly.
An ang moh kan tan fucker.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I wonder how long Lee Kuan Yew can last in Taiwan politics.
I give him 30 seconds at the most.
Can't even speak chinese properly.
An ang moh kan tan fucker.
he is a hakka yao siew.. He will never be given any chance to run taiwan at all, so no worry. the people in taiwan will throw rotten eggs at him.
-
Sad that Singapore is under the rule of this hakka bastard for almost 50 years, since 1959.
An authoritarian and repressive society.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Sad that Singapore is under the rule of this hakka bastard for almost 50 years, since 1959.
An authoritarian and repressive society.
Let us continue to wish for his early demise. -
Eh bro dun so bad leh. He might not be the best leader u'll ever see but u shldnt like that... If he really sees this forum and he sees the things u say abt him, he might find a way to jail u or sthg. Just relax man.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Only those with ''thin skin'' - and are highly strung with guilt - will deny anyone the opportunity of 'Fair Comment" on any issues, and will consistently sue for some imaginary slander that is purely self-inflicted injury.
Only those with are thick headed and low in intelligence- will fail to understand the rules of justice must be applied fairly across the board to protect the innocent from unsubstantiated and vicious slander. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Only those with are thick headed and low in intelligence- will fail to understand the rules of justice must be applied fairly across the board to protect the innocent from unsubstantiated and vicious slander.The only one with a thick head is a Mushroom that despite supposedly from Oxford, has the intelligence no better then an Ox.
Is it any wonder that both are thick in the head ?
What rules of justice, when it is interpreted by the POWER of ONE ?
Rules of Justice applied fairly across the board to protect the innocent from unsubstantiated and vicious slander ?
Why did Judge Belinda Ang not prevent the slanderous remarks made by MM LKY that CSJ is a psychotic - when such remarks are attributed by LKY to be made by his doctor friends - who did not make any direct examination of CSJ ?
Why did Judge Belinda Ang allow MM LKY and his entourage of bodyguards to barge into her court when PM LHL was mid-way being cross-examined, and yet will charge CSJ for contempt of court for persistently ignoring her bias decision in preventing CSJ cross-examination of both MM and PM at each turn ?
Try absorbing the following extracted portions from a review of an authoritative body that is more unbias and neutral.
“Fair Comments, Judges and Politics” – Melbourne University Law Review
The common law of England and Hong Kong recognises a ‘fair comment’ defence to defamation actions.
The accepted core of this defence is the right of any person to comment on matters of public concern, provided that the comment is based on identifiable and true (or privileged) statements of fact.
It perhaps single-handedly justifies the strictures which have been placed upon the complexities of the law of defamation, especially if one takes account of variations between jurisdictions.
The main focus of this article is malice.
English and Hong Kong textbooks, as well as judges, have assumed until recently that (like the defence of qualified privilege) fair comment may be defeated by proof of malice on the part of the defendant, and that malice in this context means an improper motive.[1]
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, through Lord Nicholls, has rewritten at least the Hong Kong textbooks, significantly rationalising the law, and, as it happens, bringing it closer to that of some Australasian regimes.
In Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul,[2] Nicholls NPJ made essentially three important point about malice in fair comment.[3]
Firstly, provided the basic requirements of the defence of fair comment are satisfied, the only way in which the defence can fail is if the defendant is shown to have had no honest belief in the truth of what was said.
Secondly, this is not best described as ‘malice’ — which usually requires an improper motive — for motive is now irrelevant. Rather, juries should be directed that the issue is simply whether the defendant honestly believed the opinion expressed.
Thirdly, in the case of qualified privilege, the use of the expression ‘malice’ is unnecessary and direction should be in terms of whether the defendant used the occasion for some purpose other than that for which the privilege is recognised. Any such remarks are of course obiter, qualified privilege not being at issue in the case.
Nicholls NPJ had the concurrence of Li CJ, Bokhary and Ribeiro PJJ and Sir Denys Roberts NPJ (the last expatriate Chief Justice of the colony). The Chief Justice spoke briefly, relying on the specific constitutional guarantee of free speech in art 27 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (‘Basic Law’), rather than on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’)[4] incorporated into the Basic Law by art 39.[5]
His Lordship was expanding slightly on the almost throwaway line of Mason NPJ in Eastern Express Publisher Ltd v Mo Man Ching Claudia that ‘in a society in which there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, no narrow approach should be taken to the scope of fair comment on a matter of public interest as a defence to an action of defamation’.[6]
The Cheng decision has a particular significance for Hong Kong, faced with a minor epidemic of defamation litigation, and a wider importance for the common law world. The only courts bound by this decision are those in Hong Kong below the Court of Final Appeal (which is assumed not to be bound by its own decisions).
But Lord Nicholls is, of course, a serving member of the House of Lords, and if this point should come before that House one assumes that he would pursue the same line.[7] His views may also represent the current trend of judicial views in common law courts more widely or, at the very least, may be influential.
This article places Cheng in the context of debates about the role and rule of law in Hong Kong and the position of the judiciary there.
More specifically, it is something of a defence of the Court in the face of criticism which it, and especially Lord Nicholls, has received in Hong Kong.
This involves an analysis of the development of the defence of fair comment, in the common law world more broadly as well as in Hong Kong, especially as it concerns the notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘malice’.
This wider discussion is necessary because part of the attack on the decision involved the allegation that it is an unheralded imposition on the common law of Hong Kong.
Can Singapore ever hope to out perform HongKong - when the politics has not kept pace with economic progress ?
As matters stand, Hongkong has beaten Singapore to be the best place for business for the Year 2008.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to slander.
Firstly, do you even know the difference between ''Fair Comment" and "Slander" - before you get into deeper waters with your effort to muzzle ''Freedom of Speech" by attempting to confuse it with "Freedom to Slander" ?
Is there such a thing in any Civilised World that allow any "Freedom to Slander" ?
Freedom of speech:-
An example was during a parliamentary debate as reported in the press and watched on News, there was a exchanged between opposition political party MP Low Tk. He stood up and queried on behalf of his constituents whether did Mas Selamat died in custody for such were the rumours that were floated around.
He did the right thing in expressing the freedom of speech. He was given that priviledge before the govt, but at the same time, he qualified that statement that it was only a rumour, unsubstantiated.
When asked in return by MHA Wong if he believed in the rumour, he replied in the negative and sat back down, and asked no more, fully satisfied with the answer.
Was WP LTK given that 'privilege' ?
Who are you implying is 'giving that privilege' ?
Should this be a privilege given to WP LTK ?
Did the Singapore Constitution not guarantee this as a birthright of a Citizen, more so to an elected Member of Parliament ?
Your statement imply that the Government has given WP LTK this privilege - and either you are ignorant of your own Rights as a citizen, or you are here to convince others that such a Right is now a Privilege.
Do not confuse this basic issue - as it is important to an already ill defined political space that has the rules written by a Single Political Party creating every rule in their own favor and interpreted for their own political interests.
What kind of reply did WKS give to WP LTK - except a counter question if LTK believe in that rumour ?
When LTK responded with a negative head-shake, all WKS did was to say that LTK had his own answer - with WKS saying nothing more.
Was that an answer from WKS - or was WKS expecting LTK to transmit LTK's own conclusion in the negative to his constituents - and be responsible for his own conclusion - with regards to the concerns that MSK is dead in custody ?
Have you not been complaining about my response to your questions with another of my question - that was supposed to have made you think ?
This is how freedom of speech should be. Dare to ask responsibily, but qualify your statement with intelligence and rationality first. And when given the facts or faced with the truth, accept it gracefully and back down, do not cause anymore grandstanding performance.
Is this the way a Minister respond to a query from a Member of Parliament to an important issue of public concern ?
Was WP LTK satisfied with the answer, or was he aware that the PAP dominated Parliament will bear down on him ?
Has it not been a consistent oppressive parliamentary display of unbalance power, when the MIW Majority will weigh down on CST and JBJ during the 1980s - each time when either one persist with their line of questioning to get a more satisfactory reply from the MIW Ministers ?
If at all, WP LTK was merely being considerate in not pressing home an issue that has clearly put the Minister in a tight spot, and has shown genoristy in not nailing WKS and embarrass him further.
This is the kind of reserved politics that Singaporeans will have to accept from a weak Parliament represented by only two MP from the Alternative Parties.
Grandstanding performance ?
Why are the MIW Ministers habitually defensive with questions posed by the MPs from the Alternative Parties ?
Are the MIW Ministers playing politics as they are conscious of the fact that they have to make a grandstanding performance to put the other side down, instead of being responsibly responsive Ministers ?
Only a DeerHunter is consistently interested in playing to a larger audience.
If you are not a PAP member - are you then interested in gaining recognition to be invited as one, as seen by your consistent effort in your Grandstanding Performance, when you have been continuously shown your arguments were weak and baseless ?
Freedom to slander.
An example would be CSJ slandering the govt on the alleged mismanagement of our reserves. He had no facts or even a shred of evidence to back up his words. Despite the authorities answers, he still continued to harp on it without any evidence in his newletters and the internet, causing a division and rift amongst the People having doubts, losing trust and confidence with the authorities who had done nothing wrong except to serve the People faithfully daily. Such actions harm the social fabric of our society.
Do you know the difference between ''slander" and a "comment" ?
The issues that CSJ brought up were fair comments on issues of public concerns - especially in the conduct of the government in managing the reserves.
Was it not clear as seen in the disastrous management of our Reserves in the poor investment decisions - if not in the past - at least in recent months ?
Are there not any evidences that have been published in AFP, Reuters, and even in our Straits Times - concerning the Billion Dollar investments in Shin Corp, UBS Bank, Meryll Lynch - all of which more experienced investors will not even touch ?
Is anyone not free to make "Fair Comment" on these issues that concerns Singaporeans - especially when these involve money managed by GIC and Temasek - all being National Surpluses that were transferred from the Finance Ministry ?
Have we not seen the Billion Dollar investment in Shin Corp now worth ZERO - and all we have is an EMPTY SHELL ?
Singaporeans have been silenced by the strong arm of the Police, and threatened by the uninhibited use of the ISA by this shameless Government to lock any Singaporean protestors who dare raise even a squeak in our public areas on issues that concern the manner in which our Singapore Surplus is being mis-managed.
In the recent trial of CSJ - in which MM LKY and PM LHL - sued CSJ, his sister and SDP for slander based on an article which suggested that" "NKF learnt their ways of the Government in the manner that NKF treat public concerns on fidelity issues" - as it was the same methods adopted by this Government in silencing critics that pushed too hard to get the Government to be more accountable and transparent.
This was a COMMENT from CSJ - which MM LKY had dis-ingeniously created a situation in which his own interpretation has caused a self-inflicted slander.
"Slander" would have been the public statement in court that LKY said of CSJ is a 'psychotic' - when all that LKY had depended for his remarks were third party idle and malicious comments from his own "friends" - who are doctors whom he spoke to but had no opportunity of examining CSJ directly.
If LKY had simply said that CSJ is a pyschotic based on his persistent political behaviour in butting his head in a quixotic way, one would have taken LKY's word as simply political polemics - or fair comments.
However, LKY was slanderous in his impetuous manner in naming James Gomez as a liar, and accusing James Gomez in not being brave enough to take legal actions against LKY for making this outrageous remark.
Did LKY over-reach himself, and perhaps allowed James Gomez to expose LKY's obvious game plan - to lure an opponent into LKY's own liar to be exterminated ?
is LKY now dabbling with the likelyhood of turning Singapore into a Stalinist State in which dissenters are sent to Mental Institutions, with his experimental play of psychiatric terms in his Court appearance to deride CSJ ?
Consider the following remarks from some observers - extracted from
The Politics of Madness – Dr Wong Wee Nam’
How on earth then could a lay person have the temerity to make any claim on a medical diagnosis, especially a psychiatric one?
If we can make diagnosis from medical websites, then everyone in this world would find himself or herself mentally ill.
There are implications in such damaging articles and I do not know if the writers realize this.
In my opinion, it is all right for one politician to call another politician mad. I give leeway to political polemics. However, when writers, who are supposed to be objective and factual and not combatants in the political arena, take up the hatchet to demolish someone in this manner, I sigh and ask: As a society and a nation, where are we heading?
On reading the articles, I recall the use of psychiatry to suppress political dissent in some countries where, as New York Law School Professor Michael Perlin an expert on this form of suppression put it, “a patient’s conviction that the state must be changed was seen as an indication of mental illness.”
In such places, “If you protest politically, you demonstrate by that an absence of instinct for self-preservation, or if you pursue a legal complaint against a corrupted or repressive official, that’s a sign of mental illness.”
According to Professor Perlin, throwing dissidents into mental hospitals rather than prisons has three advantages:
(1) It avoids the already limited procedural safeguards of a criminal trial.
(2) It stigmatizes people to subordinate them, and
(3) It confines dissenters indefinitely at the State’s discretion.Fortunately we are not in such a state. So far we have not used psychiatry as a weapon to intimidate or discredit citizens who tangle with the authorities. We have not criminalised dissidents or accused them of suffering from “Reformist delusions”.
“Chief Justice send remisier to Mental Institute’ - for persistently bugging him to settle an outstanding debt before he became CJ, and it seems that the court papers are now sealed / locked-up and inaccessible to all.
Have we crossed that thin red line to become a neo-Stalinist State ?
Singapore welcomes freedom of speech and criticism. BUT NO ONE, not even yourself, would welcome freedom to slander, to lie, to speak half truths, and get away scot free, using 'freedom of speech' as an excuse.
Only a thin skinned guilt-ridden person concious of his/her own wrongs will be sensitive to criticisms, and will not tolerate such criticism to be perpetuated that will rock his own power base.
If one is clear of guilt - surely a false criticism can be simply be exposed for what its true basis is - pure falsehood.
This Government and the supposed Elites have consistently depended on the use of its own Judiciary to slam legitimate criticisms, and wickedly bust the individuals into bankruptcies so that they and their families are punished - and made scapegoats for all others to see that those in Power are not to be trifled with.
So please, do not confuse freedom of speech with freedom to slander. Politically ambitious figures or anarchists often do.
It is the Political Autocrats that draw a thin line between Free Speech and Slander - making almost every fair comment to be slander, and squashing all legitimate comments as if there is truly something to be hidden.
When author Catherine Lim spoke out on the political perimeters placed by the GCT Government in late 1990s, SM LKY came charging out and insisted that political commentaries are the preserve of politicians; and suggested that politicians who dare to comment will have to be prepared for robust replies.
Now that we have a politician in CSJ to challenge the Government, his comments are considered to be slanderous, yet the onus of proof is not demanded from the plaintiffs that they have been slandered, and that the defendants have been made to defend their position.
Has Singapore legal system on civil suits become an international joke ?
As matters stand, a concerned Singaporean has already made the following observation:
Does that mean that if — heaven forbid — the judiciary really becomes corrupt and partisan, Singaporeans would be sent to jail if they question its integrity?
-
I have mixed feelings.
In my opinion, 'Freedom of Speech' is an alien concept, originating from certain Western societies, and not an indigenious idea applicable to Asian societies. However, many Asians blindly and unwittingly adopt this concept in an almost unquestioning and unmodified manner, looking at its application model in Western societies as an inspiration.
This is the contextual setup for disappointment and tensions.
The essence and root of 'Freedom of Speech' is individualism and cherishing each individual status, and his or her opinion, and their freedom to do so. This is very much ingrained in Western psyche.
There are many more manifestations of this special status of individualism in Western ideology. Freedom of speech is only one.
There are other manifestations, for instance, a more relaxed attitude towards narcotics experimentation, or the official recognition of same-sex marriage.
This is all because in Western psyche and ideology, individualism and each person's freedom, space, is very sacred.
Now I ask you a simple question. Do you think Asian societies can function the same way like Western society? Do you think one tribe is the same way like another tribe living thousands of miles away? Are their values and habits, outlook, the same?
'Freedom of Speech' in Asia plainly cannot be expected to function the same way like in the West.
I just can tell u very honestly, and stop deluding urself with otherwise.
This whole problem with 'Freedom of Speech' comes about when people mistakenly assume the supremacy of this concept, and that there is social consensus to accept it.
With regards to the political arena, I think we can see it very clearly, the schism. If we are living in a culture, where a president or a PM is deemed permissable to be caricatured in the talk-shows in TVs, like how Bush is the joke material of many comedians, not to mention many more serious critics, then of course it is very bizarre and a stark violation of a 'Freedom of Speech' when a politician is getting sued for saying seemingly 'trivial' things.
But I just want to say, our society is different.
To want to see cases such as CSJ, NOT getting sued, some things have to change first.
First, our society must deem it permissable to 'insult', or 'behave agressively' towards an 80-something year old Chinese man. Our society must take it as normal. Second is that, political leaders must to be seen as normal and unremarkable targets for 'agressive' challenge from someone/ politician apart of the power center.
This is chicken-or-egg question. My opinion is that the social climate must change first, and not the law or the application of law. Quite simply the application of law still reflect, at least part of it, some social beliefs. There is no consensus yet, as you can see in this thread, the examples of some people who are saying there is no 'freedom to slander' , meaning in his view, he has already reflected his belief that what happened is already ammounting to a slander, and is unacceptable to him.
Meat Pao.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
I have mixed feelings.
In my opinion, 'Freedom of Speech' is an alien concept, originating from certain Western societies, and not an indigenious idea applicable to Asian societies. However, many Asians blindly and unwittingly adopt this concept in an almost unquestioning and unmodified manner, looking at its application model in Western societies as an inspiration.
This is the contextual setup for disappointment and tensions.
The essence and root of 'Freedom of Speech' is individualism and cherishing each individual status, and his or her opinion, and their freedom to do so. This is very much ingrained in Western psyche.
There are many more manifestations of this special status of individualism in Western ideology. Freedom of speech is only one.
There are other manifestations, for instance, a more relaxed attitude towards narcotics experimentation, or the official recognition of same-sex marriage.
This is all because in Western psyche and ideology, individualism and each person's freedom, space, is very sacred.
Now I ask you a simple question. Do you think Asian societies can function the same way like Western society? Do you think one tribe is the same way like another tribe living thousands of miles away? Are their values and habits, outlook, the same?
'Freedom of Speech' in Asia plainly cannot be expected to function the same way like in the West.
I just can tell u very honestly, and stop deluding urself with otherwise.
This whole problem with 'Freedom of Speech' comes about when people mistakenly assume the supremacy of this concept, and that there is social consensus to accept it.
With regards to the political arena, I think we can see it very clearly, the schism. If we are living in a culture, where a president or a PM is deemed permissable to be caricatured in the talk-shows in TVs, like how Bush is the joke material of many comedians, not to mention many more serious critics, then of course it is very bizarre and a stark violation of a 'Freedom of Speech' when a politician is getting sued for saying seemingly 'trivial' things.
But I just want to say, our society is different.
To want to see cases such as CSJ, NOT getting sued, some things have to change first.
First, our society must deem it permissable to 'insult', or 'behave agressively' towards an 80-something year old Chinese man. Our society must take it as normal. Second is that, political leaders must to be seen as normal and unremarkable targets for 'agressive' challenge from someone/ politician apart of the power center.
This is chicken-or-egg question. My opinion is that the social climate must change first, and not the law or the application of law. Quite simply the application of law still reflect, at least part of it, some social beliefs. There is no consensus yet, as you can see in this thread, the examples of some people who are saying there is no 'freedom to slander' , meaning in his view, he has already reflected his belief that what happened is already ammounting to a slander, and is unacceptable to him.
Meat Pao.
Is 'Freedom of Speech' an alien concept that began in Western Societies ?
Are Asian incapable of having any values of 'individualism' ?
If there are no values of individualism - how could leadership surface from the large and extensive milleus of the different Asian societies that overwhelm different countries and conquer large tracts of land across continenets as recorded in History ?
If individualism did not exist, would strong willed individuals have surfaced to challenge the Manchus and seek the development of a modern Republic for China ?
If individualism did not exist, would there be a David Marshall, a Lee Kuan Yew, a Dr Goh Keng Swee, a Tunku Abdul Rahman - to surface from amongst a colonialised community and seek independence ?
Would it not have been a fact that it is due to the lack of willing individuals to lead the fight against Colonialist that had resulted in Asian Countries being so easily colonised ?
Are we opening ourselves to be re-colonised by the new 'Political Talibans' that demand a mono-political idiot-logy of blind obedience ?
Even Confuscius - in his time had believed in the Concept of Freedom - a brief extract is shown below, and taken from
“The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture” by Charles Alexander Moore - {clicking on this reference site should bring you to Page 310, otherwise scroll to correct page - indicator shown at the top}
The truth that the freedom which is possible and which ought to obtain must have some ground or limitation is recognised in Confucian ethics. This ground or limitations is goodness. One should choose good; one should not choose evil. If we grant that every individual has the freedom to choose evil, then the freedom of everyone will be threatened by the evil. If evil prevailed, freedom might disappear.
Hence, from the point of view of ethics, we should allow only the freedom to choose good and not the freedom to choose evil.
Confucius says in The Analects : "When i walk alone with two others, they may serve me as my teachers. Choose what is good and follow it, but avoid what is bad."
Again, he says, "Hear much and select what is good and follow it". Such expressions clearly indicate the idea of freedom to choose good.
Later, in The Doctrine of the Mean, such sayings as "Choose the course of the mean" and "He who attains to sincerity is he who chooses what is good and firmly holds it fast". Indicate the same attitude. Freedom to choose is freedom to choose, within the complex of good and evil, what is good and not what is evil.
This is man's freedom and the only freedom which is permitted in Confucian ethics.
If freedom means freedom to choose good, then what is good ?
What is good in the opinion of Confucius is the same as jen. Jen is good, and good is jen. Jenis most unselfish and least obstinate. What is firmly upheld by jen is jen itself, and not just any man's private opinion.Confucius strongly oppose such obstinacy. Confucius was not obstinate in his own opinions. It is said in The Analects, "There wre four things from which the Master was entirely free. He had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary predeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egotism."
Confucius did not like forced uniformity of belief or opinion - even in ethics.
"The superior man is catholic and not a partisan." He said, "The mean man is a partisan and not catholic" and "The superior man is seeking for harmony but not sameness. The mean man is seeking for sameness but not harmony."
Later, Mencius expressed the same attitude in saying, "The superior man seeks just for jen and cares not for sameness." This means that, if one's words and actions are not in accordance with jen, it is not necessary for them to be the same as mine.
To choose good is to choose the good in accordance with jen, and not the good in any man's private opinion. This is the true meaning of freedomto choose the good in Confucius ethics.
As indicated above, the freedom to choose the good implies or justifies the other important freedoms, ethically. To illustrate, Confucius traveled to different states during his lifetime. The purpose of his travel was to choose a good prince to serve. Now, the relations between the prince and minister is a political relation. If one has the freedom to choose which prince to serve, one is not held in bondage by the relation betwen prince and minister but has political freedom.
Confucius also maintained, in social affairs, the freedom to choose friends.
As to freedom of speech, Confucius affirmed this in his own deeds. Confucius himself was free to speak as he pleased. He edited The Book of Odes {Shih ching} and wrote The Book of History {Shu ching} in accordance with his own ideas. Certainly, he would not oppose freedom of speech. He would oppose only the speaking of bad words or empty words, that is words without corresponding actions. Good words, or what should be said, one must say; otherwise, it is not ethically right.
Confucius said, "When a man may be spoken with, not to speak to him is to err toward the man." He aslo said, "What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing wrong." Hence, the only condition for the freedom of speech is whether your speech is right or not.
If it is right to speak, you should speak freely even to those high above you, such as the prince or your parents.
Is the ancient Confucian ethics not similar to the modern Western concept of 'Fair Comments' ?
Basic sense of Humanity bonds the Human Race across tribal instincts.
It is the tribal instincts that separates the Human Race.
As China modernise, and has quietly changed from Communism to its own form of Capitalism, its people and society will soon have to change into a new political arrangement. Confucianism seems to be a model being adopted to maintain social harmony as spelled out in its ancient ethics, and this maybe the way forward for China. {The following reference site may interest you, as it reinforces the above extract in my response}
‘From Marx to Confucius: Changing Discourses on China’s Political Future’
-
Sigh...damn! always have to sort out rubbish from Madam Atobe!
There is a difference between criticism and slandering.
Criticisms borned out of intelliigence will enable the criticised to consider and be convinced with the error of his ways.
Criticisms borned out of ignorance will enable the criticised to convince the critic of his ignorance and the critic to change his perceptions.
Slander is borned out of a cunning desire to twist, tell lies and half truths to achieve his agenda.
Feel free to criticise, but the sane person will see the category upon which that criticism lies with and react appropriately.
'Fair comment' is only an expression upon which slanderers use to hide their evil agendas. How can the word 'fair' be even used when there is no fairness for a criticised to prove his innocence or the slanderer to show his evidences of the criticised' wrong doings?
Each country has its own interpretations of their laws of which is not our right to even give comment for we do not live in that society whom determines the legality of such laws, brought about through legislation by their elected representatives, but in Singapore, our society determines the law that would enable us all to live in peace if not in harmony. And Freedom of Slandering will not be tolerated by anyone, no matter how it is twisted to mean 'Freedom of Speech' or un-'Fair comment'.
-
Originally posted by bloodsucker:
Eh bro dun so bad leh. He might not be the best leader u'll ever see but u shldnt like that... If he really sees this forum and he sees the things u say abt him, he might find a way to jail u or sthg. Just relax man.
YOu are contributing to his bad to worse and worse to worst treatment to the locals by behaving the way you are. Wake up. YOu are so scared to shit, I suggest you don't even come here to voice out lest he tracks you down and follow you home to see if you are sincere saying what you said here. -
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
YOu are contributing to his bad to worse and worse to worst treatment to the locals by behaving the way you are. Wake up. YOu are so scared to shit, I suggest you don't even come here to voice out lest he tracks you down and follow you home to see if you are sincere saying what you said here.
What are his bad to worse to worst treatment to the locals are you infering? Care to list them or did you just made that up in your deluded mind? -
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
YOu are contributing to his bad to worse and worse to worst treatment to the locals by behaving the way you are. Wake up. YOu are so scared to shit, I suggest you don't even come here to voice out lest he tracks you down and follow you home to see if you are sincere saying what you said here.
I dont you this forum is run by SDP didnt I? -
I dont you this forum is run by SDP didnt I?
What kind of horrible english is this?