1984 George Orwell
said...
Random Thoughts Of The Day
1. Intimidation:
Intimidation
is a form of indirect corruption. The suing of opinion-influencers,
such as bloggers, is a form of intimidation not only upon the
individuals concerned but also upon the larger masses in the cyberspace
of this Information Age. Such intimidation must not be condoned nor
upheld in a non-corrupt Court of Laws.
This is not only an
archaic practice which should have been sent to the domain of the Dodo
Birds long ago, but also a form of indirect corruption that falls into
the category of Ill-will.
And ill-will is very ugly. It does not
speak well of the one who harbours the ill-will. It also affects those
who are associated with the deed involved. For example, if you asked me
to murder your wife's secret lover, than I have become an accessory to
your ill-will if I carry out what you had wanted me to do, irrespective
of whether you have communicated with me directly or through a third
party.
The fact that it is still being practice shows that
Singapore is still very backwards and that Singaporeans are being led by
people who are highly insecure, overly sensitive and thin-skinned, and
have the tendency to behave like military dictators who are unable to
take "No" for an answer. Such dictators simply detest criticisms and
dissents. That's why they need "Yes-Men" around them all the time.
2. Defamation:
Is there such a thing as defamation?
Before we talk about defamation, we have to understand what fame is. What is Fame?
Fame
means popularity. Popularity means many people know who you are and
what you stand for. Some may have good opinions about you, while some
may not. Some may be having varying opinions about you - sometimes good
and sometimes bad and some may have fixated stereotype opinions about
you for various reasons.
If you do not have fame at all, then
you cannot be defamed. It's just like if you do not have any money, how
can someone take away your money. Simple as that. Agree? Of course, you
cannot disagree with that.
If you are very famous, you already
have fame. So how can anyone defame you? It is not like you are sitting
on the throne like a king and someone comes along and dethrone you. The
fame you have acquired stays with you throughout your lifetime. Nobody
can take it away from you. So how can someone defame you at all?
Therefore, either way, whether you have fame or do not have fame, you cannot be defamed.
Then what re defamation lawsuits all about?
My answer is: To keep the lawyers employed and to make the courts busy, as if they are not already too busy.
3. Why sue the whistle-blower instead of the main culprit?
The answer given boils down to convenience and probability of winning the case.
If
I were to sue someone in another country using another country's legal
system, it is very inconvenient for me and it may drag on and on for a
long time. And also my chances of winning the case is very slim. But if I
do it in my own courtyard then I have a good chance of success because
of indirect influence due to my stature, my position and whatever powers
I may wield at the moment.
But that's very unfair, is it not?
There
is no such thing as fairness in the business of winning. It is just
like Donald Trump's "Art Of Rob, Borrow or Steal" that is being
practised all the time.
1984 - George Orwell
7 comments:
Key Background Facts Revealed In Court
Excerpts from TOC:
"Reading from his supplementary AEIC, PM Lee explained that he gave his “honest assessment” to his late father on what the government would do with the house after his father’s passing and told him that the Cabinet’s views would make it “very hard” for him to override them.
“I added that I would have to agree that the house had to be gazetted to be kept and if I was not the Prime Minister or I did not chair the meeting all the more likely the house would be gazetted,” he noted.
“I did not tell him then or at any time that the house had been gazetted,” PM Lee testified.
Prior to that, Mr LKY had already instructed his lawyer Kwa Kim Li to will the 38 Oxley Road property to Mr LHY and Dr LWL before he was convinced that the house would potentially be gazetted by the government.
Mr Lim, in his cross-examination of PM Lee on 1 December, asked whether the late LKY had written in an email on 8 August 2011 his request to have the house passed down to LHY and Dr LWL.
“He wrote there: ‘Kim Li, put in my will that 38 Oxley Road will go to Yang and Ling on trust for sale to be divided in three shares between my children, but that Ling can occupy the house for as long as she lives,” Mr Lim said, quoting the email.
PM Lee affirmed that Mr LKY had written such a request."
Shouldn't Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling be called as witnesses to the stand, so that facts can be confirmed and further acquired, in order to form a full and complete picture?
After all they are the two most important witnesses in any case that deal with LKY's will and decisive developments prior to his passing.
Living persons can always say things to protect themselves but what they say can also be used against them in a Court of Law.
The very important fact is that a dead person cannot defend himself in a Court of Law.
Therefore, trying to pry open the brain of a dead man to determine what he "thinks", prior to his death, is not only very unfair but also goes against the law and against common sense.
Things are getting very complicated.
It seems this is a trial within a trial, within a larger trial. But the most significant trial of all (LHL vs LHY & LWL) is still missing.
The question still remains:
Why LHL refused to sue his siblings who are the actual ones who defamed him, not once but several times???
Is this trial not tarnishing LKY's Legacy? I think it does, in one way or another, very much affect his legacy.
The unpleasant outcome is that so many people were trying to say that LKY was a fool, did not know what was happening and was deceived and kept in the dark and could not know what he wanted to know.
When he was around no one would dare to open his or her mouth to say things that made him look bad.
And those are supposed to be lawyers!
One outstanding FACT is that LKY was still the Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC on The Day He Died.
If he was mentally incapable of making any sensible or sound decision, he should have been removed from holding the MP position before his death, by the Parliament, by Elections Department, by the Cabinet, by the PMO or by the President of the Republic of Singapore.
The FACT that he wasn't removed from that OFFICIAL POSITION, by any of those responsible to do so, means whoever now turns around and try to cast doubts upon his mental ability to make sound judgements and decisions about signing his own Last Will in 2013 (two solid years before he died) must be subject to suspicion of ulterior motive or mischief, to say the least.
Disgusted Senior Citizen.
From All Singapore Stuff:
'Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is currently in the midst of suing 2 Singaporeans – Leong Sze Hian and Terry Xu for defamation.
To think that a Prime Minister of a state has so much free time, and is petty as to take ordinary citizens to task over unpopular opinions they expressed. But the bigger question is: Even if he won in these lawsuits, would his reputation be restored?
He may be able to prevent people from talking badly about him, but he cannot prevent them from thinking badly about him.
Since the start, he has insisted that he can’t and didn’t interfere in Cabinet decisions because he is an interested party, but now he is suing because he claims that as the prime minister, he has to maintain his reputation. Yet, he won’t sue his siblings, who are the cause of this whole issue in the first place. Why should it be that his siblings get a free pass from this while others who take them at their word get into trouble with him?
This just does not make any sense.'
PS: This topic is so hot that it is the talk of the town these last few days. In fact. Whole week.
Since RB avoids writing about it, I can't help but to cut from other sources and paste it here, for posterity sake.
Post a Comment