http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/media/25times.html
Singaporean leaders have a history of taking the offensive against news organizations
for language that would be legally protected — or even considered relatively innocuous — in the United States, threatening legal action or restricting the sales of publications
“Nobody in most of the world would bat an eye about” such a piece, said Stuart D. Karle, a former general counsel of The Wall Street Journal, who has handled disputes with Singapore’s leadership but was not involved in this case.
But in that country, he said, there is often “the presumption that there’s a hidden message”
about nepotism or corruption in news coverage, and if that turns into a libel case, a news organization faces
“a near-certainty of losing.”
Hi Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteI am an avid reader of your blog. I just bought your personal finance book from PageOne and am trying to read through it now. It is indeed a good handbook for most Singaporeans.
Do visit my blog and leave your comments too.
Rgds,
FF
After so many years and so many instances of such lawsuits, I think most local people already sianz of the leaders perpetually having to protect their "honour and integrity".
ReplyDeleteI think most people can see the bigger picture. If it is so correct and the truth is what they say, then why never sue in the courts of the newspapers' home country? Other countries also got defamation laws, definitely US and UK. If they win in the home country of the newspaper, I think that will really vindicate them and show that what was written is really not acceptable anywhere in the world.
Keep on suing in local courts is just to control the newspapers in singapore. NYT/IHT can just ignore the court decision, and stop operation or sales in singapore. I don't think the court decision can be enforced or even upheld in other countries. So it is forcing NYT/IHT to choose between losing singapore business or accepting the punishment.
The current leaders mode of operation may make sense in older days when most people do not have access to outside publications/broadcasting etc. But now with Internet it is really like out of touch with the world.
What was written in the article is a point of fact. If the litigants feel that there is an innuendo or hidden msg, then it is subject to interpretation by the courts.
ReplyDeleteMany other Asian leaders' names were mentioned in that article, including their relationships with previous top politicians. Those leaders do not suspect foul play.
I think this is a hollow victory for the present and former prime ministers. It appears only Davinder Singh is claiming libel from the reading of the allegedly offending article. Had this case gone to trial in any other developed democracies, it would have been thrown out due to a lack of evidence.
ReplyDeleteSuch behavior continues to attract disrepute for Singapore. Here is a reaction from the Reporters Without Borders.
http://www.rsf.org/Open-letter-to-Prime-Minister-Lee,36832.html
Whether other leaders will sue or seek redress is not known.
ReplyDeleteNYT and IHT or any other papers, are not in the business to fight court battles. They enjoy readership from printing stories that people want to hear.
The suites are filed here in Singapore for a simple reason because the laws here are in the litigant's favour.
Furthermore, this latest one refers to an undertaking from an earlier agreement NOT to publish such work.
When you are in the home of your host, do you criticize his family or how he cooked the curry?
Maybe we should.
I think that the ad nauseum defamation suits backfire on their reputation. Nobody seriouly takes notice or cares about these anymore. It's become routine. Nobody seriously cares or wants to think about whether the PM got his job by merit; they only know talking about it is defamatory.
ReplyDeleteHow does this improve or defend the reputation or integrity of the PM in public eyes and minds? GE 2006 spoke it all. 66.6%, just a couple of % shy of falling below national popular vote. It wasn't even a particularly strong team that challenged his AMK GRC. They were just 5 youngsters and 1 almost retiree whom I personally knew, our common lower middle type of next door neighbours.
Nothing to crow about. The suit is
ReplyDeletefought on home ground, no guts to
sue overseas, even an idiot knows
our PM is supported from behind by
the father. Even how fabulous work
the PM does, we still say it is the
work of the father, never the son.
We still don't find any merit in
his performance, at best it is
mediocre with an expensive salary
to boot. It is a waste of public money.
LKY tried to sue Devan Nair in Canada. The suit was thrown out of court. LOL
ReplyDeleteWe can all be armchair critic. But when someone defames you, I bet all of you thank your lucky stars that there is a precedence set by the PAP leaders so that you can claim similar damages.
ReplyDeleteHi 9:31 am
ReplyDeleteIt is not easy for an ordinary person to take a defamation suit against another party.
The chance of winning is uncertain. The legal cost is high. They do not enjoy the advantages that are available to the leaders.
To: 9:31AM
ReplyDelete1. You must be deemed have fame first in order to be defamed.
2. Somemone deemed to have an audience must have said that.
These preconditions rule out 95% of the population to be either plaintiff or defendant in a defamation suit. Defamation is not an everyday case for the commoner to be thankful for precedent.
Sue for defamation here. Only if you are LKY II, LSL II or GCT II,
ReplyDeletethe rest of Singaporeans' suit would be thrown out of court. No chance at all.