Gopalan Nair in Singapore:Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I only read first few sentences of every post. Every long article I just scroll through to see if any one who has read replied anything.
And btw, it's irritating. Better if you just post the link if you want to post so many articles. 1 or 2 is fine, but you are getting excessive. You made many get disinterested in the thread, and made many posts lost in between your spam. If that's your goal, you succeeded.
isn't that his main goal.
if my scroll wheel spoils, i know who to blame.
most folks will just copy what is required, he copied the whole god forsaken essay, a real turnoff.
-
some of his post is helpful.for me
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
some of his post is helpful.for me
i agree actually...
but not multiple very long posts, especially within the same page some more
-
yup .lol
-
Channel NewsAsia - Friday, June 6
Former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair out on bail
SINGAPORE : Former Singaporean lawyer and ex—Workers’ Party (WP) election candidate, Gopalan Nair, is out on bail after nearly four days in custody.
The prosecution said there was "no need" to remand him further.
Nair’s passport is impounded and he has been ordered to report for further investigations as and when required.
The 58—year—old American citizen was charged on Monday with insulting High Court judge Belinda Ang.
He is alleged to have sent an email accusing Justice Ang of "prostituting herself" during an ongoing court proceeding involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Hsien Loong against opposition figures Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin.
The remarks were also published on his blog.
Nair’s lawyer told the court that his client might need to leave Singapore for a short while to settle affairs back in the US.
The judge said Nair could apply to leave the country after he was released on a S$5,000 bail. His next court date has been set for June 12. — CNA /ls
-
In THe first two Sedition cases with making racist remarks
in SG in 2005, 1st blogger was
sentenced to jailed for 1 month and another one jailed 1 day
plus a fine.They committed offences in 2 to 3 days
and they were in their mid 20's.
http://singasingapore.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-bloggers-charged-under-sedition.html
2. What would happen if....
If the blogs considered containing seditious tendency,the public
really dunt know how the court will sentence the near aged 60 lawyer
with 25 years practice.
Can he defends by saying
---he forget SG laws?
---he is outside SG jurisdiction when he made the blogs in US?
---he was under great pressure when he made the blogs?
---he did not know what he was doing?
---freedom of expression in internet?(as US Embassy in SG said)
---he said the truths?
etc..
3.I am also exercising my right of freedom of expression
Wld Mr Nair and his supporters, pl
dunt sue or shoot me (via legal or other means)!!
I am just a small potato in the net to air my humble views.
I just copy and paste what Mr Nair said in his blogs.
He did say he will stand by what he says.
If any time he retract his blogs and i already copy and paste
here,pl tell me immdeiately.
I will delete it asap.
-
Previous cases cover racist and religion remarks.
http://www.aaronpeng.org/?p=1224
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory_227537.html
Sedition Act: Past Cases
In just 3 years, we managed to clock ourselves with no less than 6 people positing offensive comments/articles online.
# Last month: Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and wife, Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, charged under Sedition Act and Undesirable Publications Act for allegedly distributing evangelistic publication that cast Prophet Muhammad in negative light
# 2006: 21-year-old accounts assistant given stern warning for putting up offensive cartoon of Jesus on blog
# 2005: 27-year-old man becomes first since 1966 to be jailed - for a month - under the Sedition Act for posting racist comments online. In connected case, 25-year-old given day’s jail and fined maximum $5,000. Later that year, 17-year-old blogger given probation.2.Which areas have been covered in previous cases
Gavaman make sure that this Sedition Act will be excuted carefully
Therefore,Only AG can order the prosecution.
''Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.''
It seem Only (e) has been used to prosecute.
-
US,UK,Aussie etc also get Sedition Act or equivalent to deal with
bad elements.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/INTGUIDE/LAW/sedition.htm
pl look for the table .
-
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=210
the latest cases of bloger seeing a man sitting in MRT...
21 May 08
A local blogger who ranted about a commuter’s behaviour on an MRT train was arrested on Tuesday night.
Police said the 24-year-old Chinese man was taken from his home at Paya Lebar Way at about 9.45 pm for “posting contents in his blog which may wound the racial feelings of another person”.
A computer, believed to be used to post the suspect’s blog, was seized for investigations, which are ongoing.
The case came to the attention of police on May 19 when they claimed they received two reports complaining of the alleged posts by the suspect.....
-
In a Canadian court case arising from court hearings in SG,
foreign lawyers were concerned if they
raise the concerns about bias or corruption (of SG court)
at trial or on appeal in Singapore.
they may face Sedition charge in SG!!
Also,Judges in Canada also truth SG court!!
1. http://www.enernorth.com/fin_reports/Ont_Decision_06092006.pdf
He concluded that
the Singapore courts are characterized by the rule of law and judicial
independence; that Singapore’s judiciary enjoys a demonstrated reputation for
fairness in commercial matters;
2 http://www.wwlegal.com/Article303.html[39] Mr. Cassina?s affidavit evidence about why Enernorth began investigating the independence of the Singapore judiciary does not buttress Enernorth?s assertion that there was not a fair trial. Rather, it prompts the question of why Enernorth?s concerns about bias or corruption were not raised at trial or on appeal in Singapore. In answer to this question, Enernorth replied that it would be seditious to do so and cited section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act (Singapore, Cap. 290):
A seditious tendency is a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore.
I am not persuaded by this explanation. As will be discussed later, the courts of Singapore have a reputation for fairness in deciding cases between private commercial parties. Without cogent evidence that alleging bias or corruption in a court case would lead to charges of sedition, I have difficulty with the allegation that Enernorth was barred by the Sedition Act of Singapore from bringing objections until now.
-
The following piece is an extract taken from the first Solicitor-General of Singapore - Francis Seow :
THE New York City Bar Association, after a fact-finding mission to Singapore led by the late Robert B. McKay, then dean of the New York University Law School, observed:
What emerges ... is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. ... Any US venture contemplating business in Singapore or with a Singapore company is likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest. If a dispute arises with such an enterprise, the US company faces the prospect of a law suit before Singapore's judiciary. The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests. ... The only check on the Singapore judiciary is the prospect of ultimate appeal to the Privy Council in London.
That report was published in October 1990. Since then, appeals to the privy council have been abolished. The supervisory powers of the courts have been removed.
Is it a surprise that the Singapore Political Leadership is reluctant in taking out legal actions against those who will insult the Singapore political and judicial system in foreign countries ?
Bernard Levin’s case, on the other hand, shows that no matter how grave the provocation, the prime minister does not easily embark on litigation outside his own bailiwick. Levin, a highly-respected columnist with The Times, had published two other hard-hitting op-ed essays on Singapore, regarding which the prime minister complained in a letter to the editor of The Times as "`unrestrained indictment' of my premiership ... and is false in so many respects ... so unfair, and indeed irresponsible as a piece of journalism ... Just as he [Levin] makes the outrageous allegation that judges in Singapore are `bent or cowed', ..."
In spite of all this, the prime minister did not see it fit to sue nor even threaten to sue Levin or The Times for defamation. Instead, he offered to "discuss" those allegations with Levin in a debate on British television. Levin refused the proposed discussion. It does not require any great leap of imagination to realise that the prime minister knew that he could not influence their lordships at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Like Sun Tzu, the celebrated Chinese military strategist, he knows his ground, and chooses it with care.
If the Singapore Government believe that the Singapore Judiciary is equal to that of other First World Countries, surely, the same quality and standards in legal judgment based on legal fairness and transparency is to be expected ?
-
Political defamation
David vs Goliath
Necessary laws of course, but if excessively done can backfire with long-term negative impact for 21st Century Singapore. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jun 7, 2008"BETWEEN being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless,” said Lee Kuan Yew on Oct 6, 1997.
Today, in a changed Singapore, the Minister Mentor has not lost sight of this tough maxim to instil fear in his political foes when he feels threatened or if his integrity is impugned.
Yet again, the 84-year-old founding leader last week resorted to the republic’s controversial defamation (and libel) laws – among the developed world’s harshest – against an outspoken activist.
On the receiving end – one more time – was Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, who is already a bankrupt following an unpaid S$400,000 libel award in 2001.
The US-trained neuro-psychologist is a relative political non-entity, who is not regarded as a threat to the powerful Minister Mentor or his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
(In the 2006 election, Chee’s only team battled hard but won only 20% of the votes, the worst of the opposition showings.)
That the towering Lee decided to move against a political small fry and risk his own stature surprised many Singaporeans.
Referring to troublemakers four years ago, Lee had said: “If we considered them serious political figures we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have made them bankrupt earlier.”
What was more amazing is that he and the Prime Minister had agreed to be grilled by Chee in open court, which the latter made much capital of.
Last week’s hearing was to decide damages since defamation had already been summarily decided.
During the confrontation, which was played down by the mainstream media, Chee fired a series of embarrassing questions that were cut off by Lee’s counsel as “irrelevant”.
Dr Chee may be hit by punitive damages. But in the court of public opinion, neither side came out winners.
The opposition leader, however, has emerged with an improved standing among Singaporeans who hanker for a stronger opposition. Coffeeshop critics talk of “bullying”.
A number of people who had long disliked his loud method of street confrontations say they now understand him better. Websites had carried his emotional court statement.
“After so many years of watching how Dr Chee has been treated, my hatred for him has turned into empathy,” said one online message. “Now, I simply hope that Singapore would be able to have more of him.”
The majority of conservative Singaporeans, however, still keep the trust for their leaders and regard Dr Chee’s political manners with some disdain.
But in many ways, this defamation action has been a catalyst of sorts. For one thing, it is different from the past when the public also had a lop-sided view of the proceedings from the pro-government media.
This time, however, the Internet carried transcripts of the court exchanges and the opposition views that were ignored by the press as well as statements from Dr Chee’s party. They offered a more balanced picture.
What followed was an online buzz with some people saying the frequent use of the court to bankrupt politicians has a wider impact on society.
It is one reason why so many Singaporeans with talent had migrated to “freer” countries, said Bernise Ang.
A writer, identified only as Bender, said Lee’s action had indirectly bred “a culture of defamation” here among Singaporeans to resort to suing each other at the slightest reason.
“It favours the rich and powerful since the poor – even if they’re right – cannot afford lawyers,” said another critic.
More importantly, it raised the question whether Lee’s longstanding use of defamation (or libel) laws really serves the nation’s long-term interests.
Between 1979 and 2005, his government had instituted 17 such cases against opposition figures – all of them successfully – in Singapore courts, according to records.
The awards totalled some S$6.9mil and the amounts had been steadily creeping upwards over the past 15 years.
They do not include libel cases against the foreign media nor those against politicians, which were settled out of court.
Lee has said that these laws and their strict implementation are important to protect the integrity of the government, its leaders and the system, and to maintain stability.
Whatever the benefits, the culture of suing people has a big negative. It may have also created a largely compliant population, which is too fearful to discuss, let alone take part in, politics.
“When a person can be charged for defamation just for saying that joining the ruling People’s Action Party is the best career move, who wants to stand for election and risk bankruptcy?” asked a critic.
Opposition parties usually fail to field enough candidates to stand for even half the contested seats in Singapore’s elections.
The result is a democracy in which half the voters play no part. In some areas, some have lived for decades without casting a vote, an ideal scenario to breed apathy.
The ruling party attributes this to a weak opposition but part of the reason is a fear of being sued for making a marginal comment. Few are prepared to spend so much money on a defence.
There are many moderate voices to support Lee to say that the existence of defamation laws are crucial to safeguard the rights of individuals from being maligned or slandered.
But they say these should be used only against malicious and reckless accusers, not in marginal instances.
“Our leaders urge people to speak up. They should walk the talk if they really want the people to grow,” said ‘Witness’ online.
Reference: ‘‘Political Defamation – David vs Goliath’’ - from www.littlespeck.com
-
MEDIA-SINGAPORE: Restrictions Follow Critics to Cyberspace
By Lin Quan Zhong - Asia Media Forum
SINGAPORE, Jun 7 (IPS) - When Lee Hsien Loong became Singapore’s prime minister after his father, Lee Kuan Yew, four years ago, he encouraged citizens to "feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different". Today, these hopes for a city-state that can be more relaxed about criticism and more open to frank debate appear to have been too high.
While Singapore’s restrictions on the media are no surprise to anyone, the ongoing legal action against a foreign blogger who criticised the country’s justice system has raised fears that these tight controls are now being pushed into what has so far been a freer environment -- cyberspace.
On Jun. 2, U.S. blogger Gopalan Nair, who used to be a Singaporean citizen, became the first foreign blogger to be arrested and charged with "threatening, abusing or insulting a public servant" -- a High Court judge. His trial was scheduled to start Friday.
Writing about testimony given by the older and younger Lee in connection with a defamation suit they brought against opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, Nair accused Judge Belinda Ang of "all throughout [the Chee libel case] of prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders."
Nair, who runs the blog ‘Singapore Dissident’ (http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/), called Ang a "stooge of a judge" and a "kangaroo judge".
A lawyer, Nair openly challenged the statements of Lee Kwan Yew -- now called Minister Mentor -- at the hearing and provided details of his own identity and location on his blog.
How this case plays out is being closely watched in the region, including in neighbouring Malaysia where Internet-based independent media have a strong presence.
Over the last decade or so, the Internet has provided alternative space for media, giving audiences more options in writing, reading and discussing viewpoints not always possible for mainstream media to carry. Views expressed on the Internet have also been more protected than those appearing in traditional media, such as print, television or radio.
"Nair’s arrest is a confirmation that Singaporeans do not have the supposed privilege of being safe on the Internet," Supinya Klangnarong, vice chair of the Bangkok-based Campaign for Popular Media Reform, said in a telephone interview.
Singapore ranks at 141 out of 169 countries in the 2007 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, released by the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontiers.
In recent years, Singapore has acquired a reputation as a country where lawsuits are used against political opponents of the ruling party, in some cases leading to situations where the accused face bankruptcy due to the costs of the legal proceedings.
In the ongoing case, Singaporeans were preoccupied with a three-day court hearing in May for the Lees’ defamation suit against Chee, whose Singapore Democratic Party newsletter was charged with defaming them as key figures in the government. The publication had compared the furore over the disclosure of the huge sums of money that the executives of the non-profit National Kidney Foundation (NKF) were earning, with what it called unjustifiably high salaries of government officials.
"It is impossible not to notice the striking resemblance between how the NKF operated and how the PAP [People’s Action Party] runs Singapore," the newsletter said in February 2006.
In reply to a question posed by an SDP lawyer on the first day of the damages hearing against Chee, Lee Hsien Loong was quoted as saying by local media: "I do consider Dr. Chee as a Liar, as a cheat, somebody who has brought discredit to the opposition in Singapore, but I do not hate him."
Singaporeans have also been following reporting on a raid on the private screening of the anti-government documentary ‘One Nation Under Lee’ on May 19. Made by political activists, this 45-minute video is about Lee Kuan Yew’s rise to power and his crackdown on dissidents.
These incidents were covered by the pro-government print media including the English-language daily ‘Straits Times’, which focused on Nair’s political background and referred to him as either a "former Singaporean" or "former [opposition] Workers’ Party member".
The blogger Kengho Yap also said that the free daily newspaper ‘Today’ had two versions of reporting on Nair’s arrest. Yap posted photos of the paper on his blog ‘News Release by Uncle Yap’ (http://uncleyap- news.blogspot.com/2008/06/146th-today-changed-title-of-gopalan.html). The first version carried the headline "American Jailed for Insults", and the second one that was actually released said "Man ‘Threatened Judge’".
"They had first wanted public perception of Mr. Gopalan Nair to be American," Yap wrote.
But reactions on the Internet to Nair’s blog postings and views also vary. "I think he went too far," said Singaporean blogger Havok in an interview. "After reading some of his older posts, I can only say that he is looking for trouble."
Nair’s actions and disclosure of his personal details and location in Singapore, which to many sounded like an open challenge, were probably "the most daring or foolish act ever in the history of the blogosphere," added the writer of the blog called ‘I.Z. Reloaded’ (http://izreloaded.blogspot.com/2008/05/blogger-challenges-mm- lee.html).
But in his blog ‘Sheep City’ (http://aidilomar.com/), Aidil Omar wrote that the real lesson in the Nair case is that "we common sheep are not allowed to air our disgust and frustrations towards the incorruptible and infallible members of the ruling government".
"The thing is no government is really true and honest, so every government tries to clamp down on these things [criticism]. But Singapore overdid it," said Tyler Goh, a Malaysian studying in Singapore." He added that "everything praises the People’s Action Party," the ruling party of the Singaporean government.
Nair’s lawyer Chia Ti Lik wrote in his blog (http://chiatilik.wordpress.com), "Perhaps the case concerned Mr. Gopalan Nair. Perhaps the case centred on Gopalan Nair’s support for Chee Soon Juan and [his sister] Chee Siok Chin. Perhaps it was because Gopalan had the audacity to insult/threaten a High Court judge," he wrote. "Perhaps it was because of Gopalan’s open challenges to the Minister Mentor in his blog."
Nair was released on bail Jun. 5 for 5,000 Singapore dollars [3,663 U.S. dollars] and his passport was confiscated. Chia wrote in his blog that sedition charges are also expected to be filed by the government against his client.
Nair was an active member of the Workers’ Party, and had stood for elections in 1988 and 1991. He later moved to California where he practised law, but had returned to support oppositionist Chee and his sister, who are in the midst of their own defamation court hearing. -
This Gopa lanpa guy just join the Chees for one reason. They all hate LKY and his party becoz they can't win a place in election. They want LKY down. Nothing but personal agenda. If you really care abt Singapore, why you give up your Spore citizenship?
We all hope for constructive efforts from anyone who can make our lives better. But these goons think their bombastic words have done any good at all.
What have the Chees done? They only show concern only for their direct party supporters who are arrested. Hold vigils and protest. Have they made an effort to meet those illterate who voted for them?
Chaim did that and I have full respect for him. Suffer health problems but still make it to meet-the-ppl session rain or shine.
-
What has the Chee siblings done ?
If not having achieve much in political terms, it has embarrassed the Judiciary for its submissive impotency in not being able to respond to the abuses from the Executive; and has at least awaken Singaporeans to the farcical nature of the democratic practices based on the convenient interpretation of the members from the Ruling Political Party.
Here is an observation from an ordinary Singaporean extracted from the blog -
Singapore
Judging the judiciary
It's an anachronism that in a democratic society, there can be a public institution that seems to be legally protected from any criticism. Comment. Gerald Giam.
Jun 7, 2008The Online Citizen
“People must have confidence that the judiciary is independent…In order to make sure that we protect the integrity of the judiciary, and to make sure that people’s confidence in the judiciary is not affected, you have to be very, very strict about anyone who attacks the judiciary in scurrilous ways, or calls into question its independence.”These were the words of newly-minted Law Minister K Shanmugam, when asked for his opinion on the recent convictions of political activists Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin for contempt of court. (The Straits Times called their actions “attacks on the court”.)
Shanmugam was quoted mentioning “independence” in reference to the judiciary at least two more times. He also talked about Singapore being “based on democratic principles”.
I am not a lawyer but I do subscribe to democratic principles (albeit probably of a different form than PAP cabinet ministers do).
Personally I find it quite an anachronism that in a democratic society, there can be a particular public institution that seems to be legally protected from any criticism.
The Minister has warned that the government will be “very, very strict about (sic) anyone who…calls into question (the judiciary’s) independence”, otherwise the people’s confidence in the judiciary will be affected.
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?
And would jailing these critics somehow restore citizens’ trust in the judiciary?
That is foolish, ivory-tower logic that is based on the assumption that Singaporeans are unthinking sheep who believe everything the Government tells them.
I once asked a former Supreme Court judge why the courts always ruled in favour of PAP ministers who were suing opposition members. His reply was that most of those cases should have never been brought to court.
Once they were, however, the judges had no choice but to judge according to the letter of the law, which in Singapore is very strict when it comes to defamation.
Is it then the judiciary’s fault if Singaporeans think — rightly or wrongly — that the courts are less than independent when opposition figures are sitting in the dock?
In some cases, blame might lie with the powerful ministers who use the courts to settle their political disputes.
Political defamation suits aside, I would say that I have full confidence in the integrity and independence of our judiciary. (Well, at least I haven’t seen any YouTube videos of influential lawyers fixing judicial appointments in Singapore yet.)
The PAP leaders who have been bringing lawsuits against their political opponents all these years never cease to boast about the independence of our judiciary.
Unfortunately, what they don’t seem to realise is that every frivolous lawsuit they launch only serves to chip away at ordinary Singaporeans’ confidence in the judiciary.
At the end of the day, it is the court of public opinion that they have tried, but failed to convince.
(An IT consultant, Gerald Giam is a regular commentator on current affairs in Singapore).
-
"I once asked a former Supreme Court judge why...."
Who? Invention? Fear? Rhetoric?
-
What have the Chee siblings done ? They have proven yet again (as if proof is needed) that they are immature political fruitcakes who are consumed by personal vendata but have unfortunately been allowed a platform for their antics by the democratic political process. Once again they have diminished the image of the Opposition Parties and once again they have demonstrated the incompetence of the SDP.
-
...once again they have exposed for the world to see, what dishonorable, vindictive, petty, insecure so-called leaders Singapore has.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
What have the Chee siblings done ? They have proven yet again (as if proof is needed) that they are immature political fruitcakes who are consumed by personal vendata but have unfortunately been allowed a platform for their antics by the democratic political process. Once again they have diminished the image of the Opposition Parties and once again they have demonstrated the incompetence of the SDP.
Another one of your amateur attempt at imitating the ways of the Mentor, plagiarising his style as if you can defend it with your own definitive ways.The choice of words are more reflective of the vendetta from the Mentor towards all who dare to pop their heads at him - and can be seen from a string of events that began with - Chia Thye Poh, Lim Chin Siong, Dr Lee Siew Choh, and the countless fallen names from the Barisan Socialist in the 1960s; J.B Jeyaratnam and Tan Wah Piow in the 70s, Vincent Cheng, Teo Soh Lung and the Catholic Church in the 80's, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong and J.B.J again in the 90s, CSJ since the late 90's
Only in your own preferred deluded plagiarising of the mentor's propaganda and its continued propagation through your thoughtless words that you will hope the image of the Opposition has been damaged by CSJ.
If CSJ is as much a fool that the Mentor has made him out to be, why will the Mentor fear him so much that he has to put in a personal appearance in his Court, and make a mockery of the Court rules and ettiquette ?
Only you will believe that CSJ is an impotent threat that do not require any attention to be paid, yet you and your mentor have spared no efforts to deride CSJ and pulling the plugs to prevent him from telling the truth of events that transpired daily in Singapore.
For one who is not even in Singapore and spending half of your useless life in UK, what do you know about events in Singapore that make you such an authority ?
You should join the 'Point_blank' juvenile in his efforts at 'bastardising the opposition supporters' in his same inimitable ''bastardised version'' that feature parallel ways at bastardising the image of your common Great Mentor - the Shepherder of all white wooly sheep.
-
First world western countries also arrest bloggers which made racists
remarks etc
I quote the case are not to defend SG 's arrests,past or
present or future.Just to remind u that what the real world are.
Like LKY said many years ago,no need to tell me how to arrange
furniture in my home,eg let me run my own country.
http://www.lutononsunday.com/lutononsunday-news/displayarticle.asp?id=306589
U are the Judge what kind a blogger Nair is
I invite u to read Gopalan Nair blogs again,at least in the past 6 months.
Is He just a blogger--next--door?
Will a ordinary blogger called for killing of LKY
A..by bombing his private residence
B..flys a plane from Seletar and crush on the house
HE WAS NOT IN MAKING JOKES.
There are many things he had propsed.It is unfair
for me to comment here.
Read at least 30 of Nair'sarticles then come back and talk.
NO RESEARCH.NO DISCUSSION.
-
quote from comment by Gerald Giam
"I once asked a former Supreme Court judge why the courts always ruled in favour of PAP ministers who were suing opposition members. His reply was that most of those cases should have never been brought to court.
Once they were, however, the judges had no choice but to judge according to the letter of the law, which in Singapore is very strict when it comes to defamation."
Besides the who, invention, fear...... there is also the context. Civil suits end up in court only as a last recourse. The first being settlement out of court. When that fails, then both parties goes to court.
In defamation suits, the defendent has the opportunity to make an offer of amends. If the offer of amends is accepted by the plaintiff, and duly performed, no proceedings may be continued by the plaintiff. That is what the judge meant. Once it goes to court, the letter of the law is applied.
In court the plaintiff must prove:
1. The words must be defamatory.
2. They must refer to the plaintiff.
3. They must be "maliciously" said.
The good judge always shakes his head, that the defendants choose to go to court. That what he meant when he said that those cases should never have been brought to court. Its the plaintiff right to sue, when he has a case. The defendant should assess his own position, and not expect the plaintiff to give "chance lah".
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
First world western countries also arrest bloggers which made racists
remarks etc
I quote the case are not to defend SG 's arrests,past or
present or future.Just to remind u that what the real world are.
Like LKY said many years ago,no need to tell me how to arrange
furniture in my home,eg let me run my own country.
http://www.lutononsunday.com/lutononsunday-news/displayarticle.asp?id=306589
U are the Judge what kind a blogger Nair is
I invite u to read Gopalan Nair blogs again,at least in the past 6 months.
Is He just a blogger--next--door?
Will a ordinary blogger called for killing of LKY
A..by bombing his private residence
B..flys a plane from Seletar and crush on the house
HE WAS NOT IN MAKING JOKES.
There are many things he had propsed.It is unfair
for me to comment here.
Read at least 30 of Nair'sarticles then come back and talk.
NO RESEARCH.NO DISCUSSION.
In your feverish efforts to support and defend the Great Mentor's position, are you not making similar errors as the clueless 'Point_blank' character in allowing yourself to be a 'bastardised' version of the Great Mentor ?
Have you not considered that Goapalan Nair was actually responding to the call from the Singapore Government to remain engage with Singapore even if they have left our shores.
Did you confuse yourself with the US Laws that give the Bloggers their rights to free expressions, as much as those liberties do not threaten, instigate malice or violence that will impinge on the Civil Rights of others ?
Such regulations are quite different from the Singapore Laws that prevent anyone identifiable individual from making an honest criticism to the political envirnment which they live in.
‘Increasing the Citizens’ mindshare in e-Engagement’
Under the e-Government Action Plan II, infocomm technologies had enabled both local and overseas citizens to stay connected and engaged with Singapore. Accessing public information, participating in public policy consultations and providing feedback to Government can now all be done online with ease. Our iGov2010 efforts will continue to complement existing non-electronic service delivery initiatives and take the Government-citizen relationship to the next level, one where citizens are actively engaged in the policy-making process.
To achieve these, online information need to be clear and useful and presented in a vibrant and interesting manner. The Singapore Government Online Portal www.gov.sg – the gateway to all Government information and e-services - will have an improved look-and-feel, better content search facilities and clearer presentation of information on Government policies and services. For example, illustrations and bite-size video snippets could be used to bring across messages in a more vivid manner. In addition, the effectiveness and appeal of online Government channels need to be enhanced to attract citizens to participate in online exchanges and provide feedback to the Government.
We will also provide separate consultation spaces for Businesses, Youths and Overseas Singaporeans in the Government’s one-stop, interactive Online Consultation Portal for national issues and policy proposals (www.feedback.gov.sg).
These spaces will focus on the dialogues, themes and consultations which are of concern and interest to the respective groups. For example, a business does not have to comb through the entire slew of consultation papers to determine if they are relevant to the business. Correspondingly, it will also be easier for public agencies to hear views coming from the different segments.
Besides engaging citizens in policy-making and reviews, online channels will also be leveraged to foster greater bonding within different communities such as youths. The Youth Portal, Youth.sg, set up in 25th February 2006, is a first stop resource portal for community participation, and a virtual space for young Singaporeans who want to make a difference to the people around them. Youth.sg offers young Singaporeans easy access to information on how to start their own community activities, as well as information on initiatives that fellow youth are engaged in.(This was first published in The Star on June 7, 2008)
As was mentioned in the article included in my response dated 8 June 2008 - 02.25AM on Page 8 of this Thread - the author Gerald Chan put it very succintly in his remarks:
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?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Have you not considered that Goapalan Nair was actually responding to the call from the Singapore Government to remain engage with Singapore even if they have left our shores ?
Engage in this manner? No thanks! -
Originally posted by Troy437:
Engage in this manner? No thanks!
It takes all kinds in this World to make it an interesting place - as was challenged by MM LKY - when he was similarly constrained by the Malaysian Federal Government:-"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments - where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy?" - Lee Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary Debates
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
It takes all kinds in this World to make it an interesting place - as was challenged by MM LKY - when he was similarly constrained by the Malaysian Federal Government:-Yes, and he is a Singapore Citizen, staying in Singapore, and he took the challenges in Singapore to make things interesting for Singapore.
