Defamation Law Suits - A Double-Edge Weapon

 
Think.

Why is the public at large willing to donate to the crowd-funding of Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng the required full amount in double-quick time?

I think the public at large saw RED. Anger rose. Blood boiled internally with agony. Witnessing fellow citizens unable to fight and win any battle for a just, fair and equitable playing field in our own society, on our own land, many of them took action - the simplest and easiest action offered and opened in this long and winding path, the path of least obstacles and least resistance - for the redress of injustice done, as they saw it and as they saw fit to do it. So much so, many are willing to let their money do the talking and walking.

Their collective message to the power that be is very clear and enlightenedly significant.

It clearly shows that defamation law suits can be transformed into a double-edge weapon. It can operate both ways. One may gain something but one may also lose something. One may gain some monetary rewards from the judge's awards to fatten one's already over-bloated bank accounts, but one can also create a negative image of oneself, a more damaging aspect that one might not have calculated for.

In today's context, using the legal process and hoping to indirectly "intimidate" the public at large (via making someone become a scapegoat of convenience - killing a chicken to frighten the monkeys, so to speak) is not only a no-brainer but also of bad taste and is disgusting, to say the least. Time has changed. People have changed. It is not LKY's time anymore.

Today, there is the Internet and more people are educated and more discerning. They can and are willing to spend time to think deeper and obliquely into what the whole issue really means - the wider ramifications that involve the social fabrics of our society, of our beloved country.

Over time, this defamation law suits thingy has also become out of fashion and out of synchronization with the inspirations of our more matured society.

Our society, by and large, has already moved on beyond such old-fashion, petty, small-minded, convenient quick-fix. It's just like flogging a dead horse now. In fact, it has become counter-productive and counter-effective.

Instead of mending the alleged damage caused to one's reputation, it actually inflicts more damages to one's own image and reputation. Ironically, self-inflicted - like self-mutilation.

Lesson learnt:

Next time, before one starts suing and inadvertently also helps one's favourite lawyer becomes richer, think again. One may inflict more damages to one's own image and reputation instead of mending them. It's better to act like a lotus flower. Let whatever dirty or contaminated rain drops fall off by themselves without soiling its petals at all. That requires anger-management and self-restraint. That requires a person with a big heart, magnanimity and patience - a higher level of beings that money-making professional lawyers do not and will not understand.

If not possible, just simply think of what the public may perceive of one's actions. It is not a one-way traffic. It is definitely not going to be a win-win situation. It is highly probable to end up in a lose-lose conclusion.

In the eyes of the more discerning public today, they are likely to perceive a huge bulldozer ploughing through the earth and killing thousands of innocent helpless worms without an iota of feelings for the deaths and sufferings it has caused!

Even with artificial intelligence, a machine simply cannot have feelings!

Think harder.


SSO - 23 April, 2021

Covid19 - A disaster waiting to happen

 Note. This piece was written a week ago before the ban on visitors from India was imposed yesterday. But many points are still relevant and need to be aired.

 

Learning from other people's mistakes. We have seen many countries that were doing quite well in controlling the pandemic but plunge into despair overnight just because of a slip or a little carelessness. There was only one case in the USA, now more than 30m cases.

Other than China, the only country that is taking this pandemic very seriously is Australia.  They don't mess around and clamp down quickly whenever a few new cases appeared. But they too are waiting for a disaster to happen as they are also in a hurry to want to open their economy. They have started gingerly with New Zealand. But all is one minor slip and the infection could spread beyond control. So far they are acting very fast and snuffing out every new cases that appeared. But luck can run out if one is flirting with this virus.

What about Singapore? We have 600,000 or so time bombs in the dormitories. Yes, they have been infected and have some immunity.  They are also checked frequently. Presumably all have been vaccinated but from what we know today, vaccination does not mean one would not be reinfected.

The other big hole in Singapore's control is to let in people from three of the worse infected countries in the world, the USA, India and Britain. Not sure which is the most infected as the numbers reported are not real, not the truth. To make matter worse, new strains keep mutating and getting more serious. 

And these people are let in and the only safe guard, when found positive, is stay home notice. (OK, this part is overtaken by events). There is this hope that after they recovered, all is well. Never heard of reinfection? Never heard of the virus still hibernating in their bodies? Never mind, no symptoms means ok and after stay home notice they can socialise with the locals, exchange their breath with the community. Not to worry.

In the same logic, those in the dormitories are safe, just let them out. There is nothing to worry about. Let them drink more Newater will do. Never mind the new cases from those that have recovered. These are once in 50 years stuff. These very nice people should not be kept in the dormitories or more will turn into wildlife like the one at One North that molested two locals, a student and an adult woman, on two consecutive days. He was so desperate and must satisfy his urges.

Singapore has been lucky so far. But for dancing with the virus daily, flirting with the virus with each new arrival, luck may soon run out. Many are very disturb by this over confident or lackadaisical attitude, open the door wide wide. OK, OK, door is closing now. Singapore is a lucky country. How dare the virus come here?

Singapore cannot afford to live with an outbreak that runs amok. It is better to be safe than sorry. Hong Kong is stopping entry of flights from highly infected countries like India. We were embracing everyone from India. Soon Hong Kong would also stop flights from Singapore if the Indians switch flights from Singapore to Hong Kong. But this is small problem, other people's problem.

The big problem, the big disaster is the numerous infected cases from India that are now residing here, in our community. It only takes a few cases to become infectious with the new mutants and we will be dead ducks. Why is Singapore exposing itself to such unnecessary risks, especially allowing people from India that is likely to be the worse infected country in the world to come in so easily? The unreported cases could be many times more than the reported cases in the USA?

PS. If one dose of mRNA not enough to cause adverse effects or mutation, what about two doses, three doses or more doses? As things develop, it is looking like getting vaccinated is an ongoing affair, not going to stop at 2 or 3. With more and more mRNA being injected into the body, the risk will only get higher. the probabilities for mutation will also get higher. 

When are we going to get Chinese vaccines that are produced using the traditional method? Why is this taking so long when half of the countries in the world are using it?

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.

Crowd-Funding As An Indirect Form Of Redress By The Court Of Public Opinions?

Following in the footsteps of Leong's successful crowd funding to pay the entire sum of $130,000 to pay Lee for the defamation suit on Leong's posting of a link to an article in a Malaysian website, Roy has also managed to crowdfund the entire sum of $144,000 owed to Lee due to the court's award of $150,000 to Lee for the defamation suit on Roy's article about the CPF Scheme six years ago.

The payment of $150,000 is to be done in monthly instalments of $100 for six years. Thereafter, $1000 per month until 2033.

Such a long-drawn cruel/merciful punishment!

By 2033, another 12 years to go, may be one of the two parties would be dead already?

Justice must be seen to have been done. It must also be seen as impartial and not contaminated or twisted in anyway whatsoever.

There should be no doubts, displays or indications of fear, favour or ill-will on the part of those who decide on the ultimate outcome in the applications of the common and civil laws.

The collective minds of the educated and learned discerning public are more powerful and impartial than any individual or group of legal practioners.

The fact that both Leong and Roy are able to attract the public to contribute the full amount required in both instances in record times means there is a very strong public Message being sent to those involved in the outcome of the defamation law suits.

To me, it is a form of redress by the Court of Public Opinions on what the public might have seen or considered as injustice, miscarriage of justice, wrong application or misinterpretation of the defamation laws. This is only my personal view.

What do you think?

SSO

April 20, 2021 10:35 pm

Muslims the most hated people by the evil West

For centuries, the western world has been conducting endless wars against the Muslims particularly in the Middle East and Africa.  The Muslims are the most hated people of the West with some exception for their allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE.  The intense hate culminated in the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria after the questionable bombing of the Twin Towers on 911. Many believed that the 911 event was staged and used as an excuse to invade Muslim and Arab land, just like the fabricated intelligence of Iraq possession of WMD. 

What happened following 911 was a series of blood letting of Muslims and Arabs in the countries invaded.  The West invented a new phrase, war on Terrorism aka War on Muslims, as the terrorists were all Muslims to justify their military adventure and to kill Muslims under the pretext of killing terrorists. How many hundred thousands of Muslims and Arabs have they killed, and still killing, and how many millions of Arabs and Muslims have been maimed for life, homes destroyed, became jobless, countryless, became refugees, without home and country?

The hatred for Muslims and Arabs can be best summarised in this Wikipedia definition of the War against the Muslims and Arabs - War against Islam is a term used to describe a concerted effort to harm, weaken or annihilate the societal system of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means, Or means invading and interfering in Islamic countries under the pretext of the war on terror, or using the media to create a negative stereotype about Islam. The perpetrators of the theory are thought to be non-Muslims, particularly the Western world and "false Muslims", allegedly in collusion with political actors in the Western world.  

The West have no sympathy when killing Muslims and Arabs is concerned. They even joked about it, calling them war collateral, not killing of human beans. There was no outpouring of sympathy for the killing and destruction of human beans in such a scale as compare to the killing of a single white man or woman in their war against the Muslims. Such disgusting display of hate and belittling of the lives of Muslims and Arabs were not condemned by the western media and taken as part and parcel of their way of life, their western narratives. Arab and Muslim lives are cheap and dispensable, not even worth mentioning.

Today the West are crying buckets of crocodile tears of their alleged genocide of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, in their disinformation war against China.  The West suddenly were bowed over by their fabricated genocide of Muslims and are all united to stand up to defend the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang like another Crusade, this time their enemy is China. While they are beating their war drums in their farcical campaign of defending the Muslims in Xinjiang, the killings of Muslims continues daily in their wars against the Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Eygpt, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, etc etc.

How real are the hypocritical West in their defence of the Uyghur Muslims, when the Uyghur Muslims are having a great life in Xinjiang, living in peace and prosperity, many many times better than the Arabs and Muslims in war torn countries invaded by the western forces, and the refugees scattered all over the world because of the invasion by the West? The few trouble makers in Xinjiang were trained terrorists, trained and armed by the West to commit terrorist acts in peaceful Xinjiang to create instability and chaos in the region. These are the real people the West are trying to protect, their paid mercenaries, their terrorists. But their real agenda was their war with China, to bring down China, nothing to do with the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. They are still trying to hookwink the Muslims to fight and die for the white Empire and rule over the Muslims and Arab world.

It is good that the rest of the world have gotten used to western lies and wild unsubstantiated allegations and no longer believe in them. The Muslim and Arab world too totally ignored the western media and go about their lives as normal, and cooperating with China to improve trade to better the lives of their people. Only the western media and a few evil western countries are still singing this chorus of genocide in Xinjiang to a disinterested international audience. They still think the Arabs and Muslims are so gullible. They can see the Arab and Muslim countries being invaded and destroyed, the arabs and Muslims being killed and scattered as homeless refugees. The Arab and Muslim world have seen through the western hypocrisies and their wars against the Muslims and their hate for Muslims. 

Without the Arab and Muslim world believing in the white lies, the West can do nothing much to harm China other than harming themselves and exposing themselves to more ridicules by the rest of the world. White men and white lies are no longer believeable by the rest of the world.

Just look at how vicious are the Americans and the whites are trying to destroy Iran, another Muslim state.  The West would not allow a Muslim country to have nuclear weapon to stand up to them. Look at how they cooperate with Israel to bully the Palestinians and control the whole of the Middle East? How's that compare to their their love of Muslims in Xinjiang?

PS. Now read this quote from theguardian.com

Donald Trump had made headlines before, in June 2015, when he had called for a “great, great wall” along the Mexican border. Back then, he was hovering around ninth place in a crowded field of Republican candidates. But by 7 December, when he released a short statement calling for the “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration, he was the frontrunner for his party’s nomination. His message, that Islam itself was a threat to America, was heard loud and clear across the globe, not least by 1.6 billion Muslims.

Now, as president, he appears to be following through. On Friday he stunned us again by announcing that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries – encompassing around 220 million people – would be barred from entering the US for 90 days. On Sunday, his long-time ally, Rudy Giuliani, traced the order back to a conversation about the “Muslim ban” in which Trump asked him to “show me the right way to do it legally”. While commentators have had their work cut out trying to follow the twists and turns of Trump’s logic on everything from climate change to the CIA, on this issue his attitude has been consistent. If there is a Trump doctrine, “war on Islam” has to be a strong contender.