'Over the last 8 days, you have helped to crowdfund the balance amount of S$144,000. At the start of this crowdfunding campaign, after seeking the advice of my lawyers, I have already transferred the first installment of S$1,000 from this crowdfunding to Lee Hsien Loong, which leaves S$143,000.'
The above is quoted from Roy Ngerng's post in the TRE. His lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam, has written to Hsien Loong to make a lump sum payment for the full amount outstanding of the award by the court.
In a short few weeks, one after another, Singaporeans have come forward to donate $133,000 and $144,000 to Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng to pay for the damages awarded by the courts to Hsien Loong in his defamation suits against the two. This generous act of the Singaporeans, many did not know the two personally, some were even unemployed, speaks a lot about the generosity of the Singaporeans, and more. In a way they have taken sides, and helped to relieve the financial burdens of the two men and free them from the stress and anxiety arising from the defamation suits.
Oh, Leong Sze Hian's financial burden is not over. The legal fee for Davinder Singh's service is another $130,000. So the crowdfunding must go on.
What's more is there to say about the politics of Singapore? What's more to say about the kindness and big hearts of Singaporeans especially during a pandemic when many are also financially stressed?
The Singaporeans are willing to pay from their own pockets when it has nothing to do with them, or is it?
What do you think?
What about this from theindependent.com?
'Singapore — Courts should take into consideration that libel damages can be crowdfunded and the amounts should be increased accordingly, says Mr Calvin Cheng.
In a Facebook post on Saturday (Apr 17), the former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) contended that courts should increase the libel damages as supporters of the libellous causes can share in the punishment.'
My immediate thought is that if Ah Kow's reputation is worth $2 the court could award him $2m in damages if the court thinks the public through crowdfunding would be willing to contribute $2m to pay for the award. I am so brilliant with this kind of logic. Oops, cannot call this logic.
Sometimes stupidity could be mistaken for talent.
Is Singapore looking for a 4G PM, look no further. Singapore can have its own version of Donald Trump. Can anyhow hantam, the President is always right. If wrong it is called alternative truth. Heard of a clown President?
6 comments:
If Calvin Cheng ludicrous suggestion is to be taken at face value, that indicates that the value of the award can be at the whims and fancies of the court, and not according to the circumstances of the case, if crowdfunding is involved. Is this interpreting the law or a travesty of the law?
How did this guy become NMP I wonder?
Highly educated but with low mental development. But then being taught that cotton wool comes from sheep, that says a lot about being educated overseas.
Western democracies is both phoney and a farce. Any crooks and scoundrels with the gift of the gap can on elections time become play actors demagogues and through their demagoguery are able to browbeat and hookwink the people to elect them into power. Once in power the people are easily forgotten by them for they will only for their own selfish intereststo make the rich become even richer while the masses are sidelined to suffer with even more illogical taxes both direct and indirect taxation. Western democracy is skewed to serve the rich and powerful at the expense of the people. Many countries in South East Asia which adopt western democracy are therefore no different from the West. They have learnt from their western masters the art of exploiting the people and get away scott free.
Eagles Eyes
Singaporeans have shown their opinion about the Roy Ngerng conviction by donating to his fine to LHL. The message to the elites and the untouchables of Singapore is loud and clear. Singaporeans will show their anger about the judicial injustices by putting their hand in the pocket.
The Subjective Aspect Of Awards For Defamation Law Suits
How do judges come up with the magic figure for the sum of money to award the plaintiff in a civil law defamation suit?
In addition, how does the judge know how much legal cost to allocate to the winning side's lawyers?
If the plaintiff engages a big team of expensive lawyers led by a famous and popularly-known sure-win $enior counsel, instead of using one reasonably-priced, equally-qualified but not-so-famous counsel, where does the judge draw the line? Or, the sky is the limit?
Does it mean that the legal cost must be tailored to the amount demanded by the winning side only? If so, is it not an unfair and subjective way of allocating costs? What is a fair yardstick of measure? Is there even a fair yardstick in practical existence today?
How does the judge determine how much compensation is fair?
Isn't the whole question of compensation and cost a very subjective issue, left to the arbitrary decision of one imperfect human bean, which is subjected to personal idiosyncrasies and innate biases? And sometimes under pressure of time and stress due to heavy workloads or other reasons.
More often than not, it is a matter of conjuring up a figure by estimating (or guesstimating) in favour of the plaintiff, keeping fingers crossed and hoping that it is acceptable, isn't it?
Why must defamation law suits be pegged to large monetary awards, like tikam tikam, like lottery prizes? Isn't such an award defeats the purpose of the defamation law suit itself? It stinks big time. The bigger the award, the bigger the stinking effect (pun intented).
How does the amount of money restore the fame that is lost?
Money can never replace the damage already inflicted upon the image of the person.
The right thing to do is to order the defendent to retract the offending words that were said or written, make a public apology unreservedly and promise not to repeat the same thing again. (Which were asked for in the first place but the defendent has refused to acceed.)
If money is to be considered as a part of the compensation, a $1 symbolic representation should suffice. Otherwise, the defamation law becomes a vehicle for clever and/or unscrupulous lawyers to exploit for quick and easy personal monetary gains and also as a means to institute vindictive punitive pursuits.
In all fairness, shouldn't there be a limit to the extent to which the monetary compensation and cost can be imposed? Otherwise, as has been seen many times, the civil defamation law has inadvertently allowed the rich and powerful to take advantage over the poor and weak, by suing them "until pants drop", as has been popularly referred to in the streets, and even in the Parliamentary debates!
Justice must be seen to be fair in order to be fair.
From the bottom of my heart,
Yours truly,
The Queen of Hearts.
22 April 2021.
Two questions:
Who appoint the judges?
Who is paying the judges?
The answer needs no rocket science knowledge.
Post a Comment