Here is a statement posted by Alex Au in his blog:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/comment-about-k-shanmugam-withdrawn/
Please read this statement carefully and learn what was the earlier statement that Alex Au had to withdraw, and the context in which it was written. The earlier statement was considered to be defamatory.
Many Singaporeans have been making statements, in other blogs and websites, about me and other people that are insulting and outrageous. They pass judgment on me that are more defamatory in nature and insist that it is within their right to "freedom of speech".
I hope that these people will try to exercise their freedom of speech against more powerful people, and see how far they can go.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/comment-about-k-shanmugam-withdrawn/
Please read this statement carefully and learn what was the earlier statement that Alex Au had to withdraw, and the context in which it was written. The earlier statement was considered to be defamatory.
Many Singaporeans have been making statements, in other blogs and websites, about me and other people that are insulting and outrageous. They pass judgment on me that are more defamatory in nature and insist that it is within their right to "freedom of speech".
I hope that these people will try to exercise their freedom of speech against more powerful people, and see how far they can go.
Eating humble pie, under threat of a sledgehammer slamming down on you is the only way out, else Alex would face the same fate as J.B. Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan and the rest - all sued to be made bankrupt, jailed or be chased out of Singapore.
ReplyDeleteStill stick to the same old formula to suppress dissent, so many months after the GE, PAP is once again rearing out its ugly head. The leopard never changes its spots.
@"Many Singaporeans have been making statements, in other blogs and websites, about me and other people that are insulting and outrageous. They pass judgment on me that are more defamatory in nature and insist that it is within their right to "freedom of speech"."
ReplyDeleteAs I commented in another of your earlier posting, referring to the ST Forum; lest to say of open forums in the WWW :
"It is strange some of these writers although regulars at ST Forum would partake in forum at selected timing just to attack from their "loyal" side to hit the opposition parties. It is well known that letters published are edited as you noted above.
Of more concern is the way these writers take side against the opposition and how a press like ST would also take side. By taking away the above sentence, is it taking side? Are they liable to be sued? Certainly not. It is your letter.
Why had these other writers chosen to keep quiet and not eagerly written to the press and argued with zest when earlier CPIB probes against top civil servants were announced and rather slowly. Such actions speak for itself. As one writer fairly said, "don't practise double standards". Is this very much our political culture? I am afraid it is."
Sometime it is a matter of which side you are on? LOL. And whether you have the "authoritative power" and legal power or "money" to assert. Perhaps you are too kind or see no worth to assert...someone earning million-dollar salary might not and has to prove the worth of this salary...and has his own "money" to assert.
Seeing the legal precedence set, I urge you must censor my comment above even it is safe. LOL.
Then again, if these incidents are mentioned often enough, it will morphed into the Hard Truth...
ReplyDeleteThe Sad Truth is that adultery is not a crime.
Whatever, as Alex so cleverly put it. He take the Minister's words.
As Mr Chiam once said, "if the PM said so, it must be so."
Small issue also sent lawyer letter.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to note that the Law Minister had just sought changes to amendments to the Evidence Act. If I am not mistaken, changes have been passed just yesterday as reported in TODAY, to include giving judges more flexibility in determining whether to admit statements made outside of court and not tested under cross-examination.
ReplyDeleteWith the changes to the Evidence Act, the courts now have greater latitude in admitting hearsay evidence and also the new law introduces more flexible exceptions to allow "hearsay" evidence.
Alot of what we hear, say or comment in the Internet can now fall under "hearsay" evidence which a judge is now empowered with discretion to admit as evidence. This is a double-edged sword. So BEWARE!
Just a quick point.
ReplyDeleteNo statement has been "considered to be defamatory" by the courts or the legal system. A lawyer has alleged that something said was defamatory, it has been removed from the page in question, but it has not been found defamatory in any court of law.
Mr Tan you have received such letters when you attempted to report truthfully about the terrible prospects for a UK land banking company. Even though they are under investigation by the CAD they still carry misleading information about the prospects for UK greenbelt land on their website.
ReplyDeleteSome voices need to be heard.
To be fair, sometime certain pple need the hammer knocking some sense and stars so that they seperate wad is facts and fiction. Passing comments like "you r weak" is one thing, but metting out untrue allegation is another.
ReplyDeleteIf everything is based on hearsay, then the cow will fly indeed. Sometime, I suspect, pple will only learn when hammer comes down. They can only say things as they like to pple who cannot retaliate. but when taken to task, all unable to stand to scrutiny.
There is a fine line to be drawn, only if one see and know the boundary.