9/04/2013

Defamation defined - Law Minister Shanmugam

In his dialogue with Law Faculty students this was what Shanmugam said of defamation law.
 

‘Defamation laws, he said, are not there to stop people from criticising the Government, but exist to protect personal reputations.
 

"If you make a personal allegation of fact, if you say I took money, I am corrupt, I will then sue you and ask you to prove it. But if you say I am a stupid fool who doesn't know what I'm talking about, and the Government comprises ministers who don't know what they're talking about and you criticise every policy of the Government, no one can sue you," he said.
 

By all means challenge my competence, by all means challenge my policies, by all means put forward alternate policies. By all means argue it, no problem. That’s not defamation.’ ST 3 Sep 13
 

This is about the clearest definition on the govt’s stand on defamation laws here. This is also the opening up of a govt that used to be suffering from a hang up that no one should criticize the govt, no big no small, no respect for authority.
 

I fully agree with Shanmugam’s position on defamation and personal attacks on ministers or anyone. It is fair criticism on govt policies. I would not go so far as to call a minister a stupid fool. A little decorum will go a long way.
 

And as citizens, it is of utmost importance that they should be interested in the affairs of the state and should air their views on policies or decisions that they are not happy or disagree with. We need participatory citizenry for the good of the country. We can’t have a nations of droids, with no views or do not care a hoot what is going on in the country and to the people. The outcry against the influx of immigrants is a good sign that the citizens are taking ownership of their country and would not be push overs.
This explanation by Shanmugam is a welcome move, to clarify an invisible and moving OB lines. The people and those responsible for enforcing defamation laws would now be in a better position to know what is fair comment or what is defamatory, and to stay away from the law. The eyes will still be watching and defamation or no defamation critics should be careful for you do not know what could hit you next.
 

There is no need to get too personal for all parties when having a discourse on the affairs of the state. Isn’t this what the Govt has been clamouring for, wanting the people to stand for, to come forward to take a more active role in the affairs of the country?

23 comments:

  1. Still, it is not easy to take on someone who has power or money as that powerful or rich person can sue or threaten to sue even if guilty.

    Remember T T Durai and NKF? The shenanigans have been known for quite a while and in fact someone accused Durai of wrong doing, but was forced to apologize because he does not have the wherewithal to engage in a lengthy law suit with Durai.

    Might is right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But PM Lee said he is "flame-proof" what.

    So can criticism of him being a incompetent PM help? Or for that matter all the other ministers and MPs?

    It is not defamatory to criticise someone as incompetent, tio bo?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If he is "flame proof", then criticising him may not really matter, tio bo?

    And why do things that do not really matter?

    No wonder PAP, after all these criticisms, is still considered by 60% Sinkies as the best available party to rule over SInkies.

    And some more even viewed by strongest opposition WP as a competent govt. LOL



    ReplyDelete
  4. He is competent enough to make 60% happy and satisfied to vote for PAP.

    But not competent enough to make 100% happy and satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Still, it is not easy to take on someone who has power or money as that powerful or rich person can sue or threaten to sue even if guilty."
    The September 04, 2013 8:34 am

    Not only not easy but also stupid to take on someone who has power or money.

    Unless you equally or have more power and money than that someone lah.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you want to fight or criticise someone, you must be their match.

    Or else better to say not ready to fight or criticise lah. Better still, praise that someone and make friend with him/her. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Or else better to say not ready to fight or criticise lah. Better still, praise that someone and make friend with him/her. LOL"

    In other words, it's best if Singaporeans continue to be hypocrites.
    Didn't George Yeo say something about hypocrisy?
    Maybe that's why so many Singaporeans decided to quit Singapore?

    What do you call a Singaporean who makes other Singaporeans want to quit the country?
    A founder or a tyrant of the country?

    ReplyDelete
  8. He has not said anything earth shaking. Look up any textbook on the law of defamation and you can find that statement down to the example. What he should do is to talk about much needed reforms to the law of defamation. Would he have the guts to follow the recent UK example? The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in limiting damages is at best a tentative step forward in the light of the sea change in Commonwealth countries.

    ReplyDelete
  9. He has not said anything earth shaking.
    Anon September 04, 2013 10:50 am

    But it is earth shaking to daft Sinkies who are not lawyers. Normally, daft SInkies where got look up textbooks one, let alone law textbooks?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some of these hypocrites were in the 60% , that is why PAP won . No guts to even choose a stand ...so sad . If you agrees , you support . And if you do not agree , you speak out or oppose .. so simple .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Seriously, at first I agree with him.

    "If you make a personal allegation of fact, if you say I took money, I am corrupt, I will then sue you and ask you to prove it."

    Then I realise it is not fair. Here is the reason.

    CPIB: you are corrupt.
    You: prove it.
    CPIB: you are invited to my office. we will give you free food and drink.

    Can you also invite the minister for free food and drink? Cannot, right. That's why it is not a fair comment from him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. if one uses father money to sue father, that is unfilial. so what is using taxpayers monies to sue taxpayers? is that treason?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This little red dot is world famous for super talent and clean governance. Why you all worry so much until every night cannot sleep well when our future are in the super safe hands of our super talents. No worries. Sarpork ( 1000% with both eyes paste stamps ) all the way! Next GE sarpork super talents landslide 101%! Super talents cannot be wrong one!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have a friend whose driving lic was provoke for 6 months someone else had ran into his car somewhere in Bukit Timah area, his car was hit as the other driver had dash a traffic light, it happen in the very early hours which there is hardly any body or vehicles, he lost his case even when he was not in the wrong.
    Strangely enough witness appeared to testify against him, my friend instead went out to prove his innocence, taking timing from the traffic lights, the direction of the vehicles etc, he took and provided loads of data but the court could not accept his evidence. He later told me that the driver's father was a high profile doctor from a reknown hospital, and by the time the case was presented in courts, the driver is doing studies overseas.
    He lost and had to pay for the insurance for the repars and had his lic stop.
    This is not a defamation case, but in a country that has it's own set of laws, even when one makes clear what the meaning is of a certain word is, it would be better if the lawful people sound the same, if not i think you can add the eighth gamble to your list.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Redbean,

    they really think people are daft. Who are the one that make the policies, and who are the one that happily can sue the people where they themselves didn't have the accountability, transparency and responsibility of leadership to begin with, when they are paid using taxpayer's money ?


    it is all about people, if not, any crooks, liars, robbers , thief can becomes part of cabinet because they can give policies too ...

    first, it is all about people, secondly then policy. One cannot accept a policy without first gaining trust on those who make the policy.

    redbean, agree ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "and the Government comprises ministers who don't know what they're talking about and you criticise every policy of the Government, no one can sue you"

    Who is the "no one" he is talking about ? Can he tell us more about this person call "no one" ?

    Just because "No one can sue you" does not mean "No one don't sue you" , understand or not ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you say chong pang many opposition voters, no one says no one can sue you.

    If you say marine parade many opposition voters, no one says no one can sue you.

    If you say kallang many opposition voters, no one says no one can sue you.

    If you say tampines many opposition voters, no one says no one can sue you.

    If you say east coast many opposition voters, no one says no one can sue you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am a no one.Nobody.
    To me,actually I don't give a damn if any one here claim that I murder,rape,have sex with minor,cheat...becos my conscience is clear.
    I specially come here to let others vent their anger and accuse me of anything to satisfy their urge so that they can be free from trouble for accusing others but no one seems interested to do so to me.Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  19. No one can sue a nobody .......

    ReplyDelete
  20. No one seldom want sue nobody .....

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nobody can sue a nobody

    But nobody can often not sue no one

    Because no one often cannot be sued.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No one despises a nobody

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nobody gets sued because no one despises him.

    Nobody gets sued because no one ever sues one that got nothing more than nothing to be sued.

    Nobody is often not flamed because nobody wants to flame him.

    It is because nobody is flameless.

    So no one is flamed is happier than nobody who is not flamed.

    Because no one still has something to be flamed than nobody who needs not be flamed because nobody himself is testimony of nothing to be flamed.

    No one not gong for no one sues nobody.

    ReplyDelete