Freedom of Speech vs Freedom to Slander

Atobe SG

Sigh...damn! always have to sort out rubbish from Madam Atobe!

"Madam Atobe !" ?

Is this supposed an indication of someone's progressive climb in respect and recognition of the 'Truth' ?

"rubbish from Madam Atobe!" ?

Should we extend the "Freedom of Speech" to you, or is this an attempt with exercising your "Freedom to Slander" that you so freely claim should not exist ?

Or is this not an exercise of futile polemic that bears the characteristic hallmark of a juvenile attempting to wear adults' shoes that are simply too big even for the head ?

There is a difference between criticism and slandering.

Has "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom to Slander'' now become a comparison to a justification between ''criticism' and "slandering" ?

Criticisms borned out of intelliigence will enable the criticised to consider and be convinced with the error of his ways.

Criticisms borned out of ignorance will enable the criticised to convince the critic of his ignorance and the critic to change his perceptions.

You have clearly avoided giving any indication of your understanding between the concept of "Freedom of Speech" and that of "Freedom to Slander" - and now you will move into a discourse on "criticism" and "slander" - are you not moving into deeper waters before you even define the perimeters of your understanding ?

In the first place, why do you assume that 'crticism' must be borned out of ignorance ?

Slander is borned out of a cunning desire to twist, tell lies and half truths to achieve his agenda.

What is 'Half-Truths' and what is a "Lie" - which seem to be your only defensive posture that you have constantly taken refuge without any further elaboration even with any specific reference from the text that you claim such instances exist ?

Do you believe that there is 'half-of-a-Truth' that can be accepted from a response, and that the other 'Half-of-the-Truth' is too inconvenient to be accepted - and is no longer a truth but a 'Lie" ?

Are you qualified to establish the legal boundaries of interpretation in what constitue a 'Slander' and what is not ?

Feel free to criticise, but the sane person will see the category upon which that criticism lies with and react appropriately.

Those who are criticised have as much right to give their appropriate response, which is limited purely to the criticism.

More often then not, it takes greater effort for the person who has been criticised to be rationally objective in returning a response, as the person who has been criticised will need to understand that the criticism could have been a done so due to several reasons -

1. Differences in opinion to the same subject

2. Wrong interpretation of the subject which may have been POORLY presented.

3. Differences or lack of detailed information surrounding the subject matter that has been presented that result in misunderstanding - causing the criticism.

Anyone in public office has already offered himself to serve the larger public, and should be prepared to be criticised for any big or small actions done, as no single action will please everyon or anyone at the same time.

As the saying goes - if you want to be on stage, and enjoy the limelight, be prepared to take the heat; otherwise - quit the stage.

'Fair comment' is only an expression upon which slanderers use to hide their evil agendas. How can the word 'fair' be even used when there is no fairness for a criticised to prove his innocence or the slanderer to show his evidences of the criticised' wrong doings?

Is this not ironical ?

Do you even know what slander is - since you have refused to elaborate your understanding between "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom to Slander" ?

Do you know what is "slander" and what is a "comment" ?

Do slanderers need to hide behind any cover for their recklessness ?

If slanderers need to hide behind a defense called "fair comment" - would it not be a mirror image that the guilty-conscious will hide behind the defense of being slandered ?

Each country has its own interpretations of their laws of which is not our right to even give comment for we do not live in that society whom determines the legality of such laws, brought about through legislation by their elected representatives, but in Singapore, our society determines the law that would enable us all to live in peace if not in harmony. And Freedom of Slandering will not be tolerated by anyone, no matter how it is twisted to mean 'Freedom of Speech' or un-'Fair comment'.

Are you attempting to divide Singapore society into Classes or into a Caste System - in which if you are not in that Caste, it is therefore not your right to question or to criticise ?

Are you from the Indian sub-continent where in this 21st Century, the caste system continue to exist in various forms that divide Indian society ?

Do you consider yourself to be more legally trained than those who have been quoted in the following extract taken from a paper prepared by members for the Melbourne University Law Review ?

“Fair Comments, Judges and Politics” – Melbourne University Law Review

The common law of England and Hong Kong recognises a ‘fair comment’ defence to defamation actions.

The accepted core of this defence is the right of any person to comment on matters of public concern, provided that the comment is based on identifiable and true (or privileged) statements of fact.

It perhaps single-handedly justifies the strictures which have been placed upon the complexities of the law of defamation, especially if one takes account of variations between jurisdictions.

The main focus of this article is malice.

English and Hong Kong textbooks, as well as judges, have assumed until recently that (like the defence of qualified privilege) fair comment may be defeated by proof of malice on the part of the defendant, and that malice in this context means an improper motive.[1]

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, through Lord Nicholls, has rewritten at least the Hong Kong textbooks, significantly rationalising the law, and, as it happens, bringing it closer to that of some Australasian regimes.

In Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul,[2] Nicholls NPJ made essentially three important point about malice in fair comment.[3]

Firstly, provided the basic requirements of the defence of fair comment are satisfied, the only way in which the defence can fail is if the defendant is shown to have had no honest belief in the truth of what was said.

Secondly, this is not best described as ‘malice’ — which usually requires an improper motive — for motive is now irrelevant. Rather, juries should be directed that the issue is simply whether the defendant honestly believed the opinion expressed.

Thirdly, in the case of qualified privilege, the use of the expression ‘malice’ is unnecessary and direction should be in terms of whether the defendant used the occasion for some purpose other than that for which the privilege is recognised. Any such remarks are of course obiter, qualified privilege not being at issue in the case.

Nicholls NPJ had the concurrence of Li CJ, Bokhary and Ribeiro PJJ and Sir Denys Roberts NPJ (the last expatriate Chief Justice of the colony). The Chief Justice spoke briefly, relying on the specific constitutional guarantee of free speech in art 27 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (‘Basic Law’), rather than on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’)[4] incorporated into the Basic Law by art 39.[5]

His Lordship was expanding slightly on the almost throwaway line of Mason NPJ in Eastern Express Publisher Ltd v Mo Man Ching Claudia that ‘in a society in which there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, no narrow approach should be taken to the scope of fair comment on a matter of public interest as a defence to an action of defamation’.[6]

The Cheng decision has a particular significance for Hong Kong, faced with a minor epidemic of defamation litigation, and a wider importance for the common law world. The only courts bound by this decision are those in Hong Kong below the Court of Final Appeal (which is assumed not to be bound by its own decisions).

But Lord Nicholls is, of course, a serving member of the House of Lords, and if this point should come before that House one assumes that he would pursue the same line.[7] His views may also represent the current trend of judicial views in common law courts more widely or, at the very least, may be influential.

This article places Cheng in the context of debates about the role and rule of law in Hong Kong and the position of the judiciary there.

More specifically, it is something of a defence of the Court in the face of criticism which it, and especially Lord Nicholls, has received in Hong Kong.

This involves an analysis of the development of the defence of fair comment, in the common law world more broadly as well as in Hong Kong, especially as it concerns the notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘malice’.

This wider discussion is necessary because part of the attack on the decision involved the allegation that it is an unheralded imposition on the common law of Hong Kong.

Will you pretend to be smarter than those who have more years practicing and interpreting laws in more honest and analytical ways then a juvenile who is only good at role playing - as in 'masak-masak DeerHunting' ?

You can pretend to hide behind the false defense that different societies interprete laws for their own societies, unfortunately you cannot hide from the fact that Human Decencies cut across borders.

Human Decencies will surely expose this false defense taken to prevent honest voices from speaking the Truth.

Do you think that Singapore can ignore World Opinion to its continued abuse of the Citizens' rights to Freedom of Speech ?

If this MIW Government wish to have Singapore plugged iinto the World Community, how long do you think Singapore can ignore and isolate herself from the First World Standards of Good Governance towards its citizens ?

Atobe SG

I disagree a little bit with what Atobe said previously.

'Freedom of Speech' is a parlance originating from Westerners.

I think everybody know about this.

Not sure if it can be attributed to Confucius, or other prominent Asian thinkers, Gandhi, Buddha.......I think none.

The phrase - "Freedom of Speech" - may probably be 'parlance originating from Westerners' - but it does not mean that the concept of ''freedom of speech'' is exlusively a 'Western origin'.

The referenced research of Confucius analects - as given in my previous reply to you - had clearly shown that even during the period of Confucius wrting his thoughts, it is clear that the concept of Freedom to choose, to speak honestly, to criticise even to the highest authority without fear - is all clear.

Freedom of independent thought is part of the characteristic of Human Behaviour - even animals has shown that different animals have the ability to be independent and unique in each of their individual characteristics behaviour - even within the same species.

Does this not indicate that individualism will surely result in differing independent views that lead to independent actions, all of which surely will give rise to different thought processes that lead to the spoken words ?

If there is no individualism, do you think that there can be leadership ?

Surely, it takes a strong individual to become a leader ?

Are there no such strong leader in Asian society since even before the time of Confucius ?

Do you think that strong individuals will succumb to any pressures from preventing their minds to function, and their voices speak out for actions to respond to social injustices and abuses ?

Actually if we see the Asian society around us.....you know the Thai King cannot be insulted, or u can go to jail.

I think maybe some similar legislation exist in England, up to today. Cannot insult the Queen of England.

But the difference with Singapore is that........Singapore has no King......so the function of the 'state symbol' , or 'senior leader' apparently is somewhat taken over to a certain extent by...President, PM....and maybe MM, not sure about him.

It seems that you are not too clear as to the extent of "Freedom of Speech" that can be characteristic to our Asian values and culture ?

Is "Freedom of Speech" not part of the Asian values and culture ?

If we were to look at India, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Taiwan - these are examplary Asian societies with an open political system that allow their citizens to be part of the National Political Process.

Within the Japanese and Thai societies - each has their Royal Families, whom they revere and almost worship - and even as their respective societies enjoy a wide space in exercising their invidual rights to the basic "Freedom of Speech" - they recognise and accept a threshold limit that no one cross.

One must remember that the Royal Families - whether in Thailand, Japan, or UK - are all above POLITICS.

The Royal Family isolate themselves from the political frays between political animals from different political parties - and hence, allow themselve to be ABOVE criticism.

It is due to the sad and mistaken belief that Royalty can interfere in politics that has led to the downfall of some famous Royal Households - from the Shah of Iran, the King of Nepal, and even the last Emperor of France-Bonaparte Napolean.

As long as MM LKY, and PM LHL are politicians - they are open targets to public scrutiny and to public criticism; the fact that they are at center-stage and are the originators of all policies that affect Singaporeans, they are putting themselves into a higher profile of being criticised or praised for all their actions.

One simply cannot cut the cake any way one wants, and not allow criticism to take place - if you want to be a cook, you got to learn to take the heat, otherwise stay out of the Kitchen.

If we look at nearby countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, actually they also had old laws prohibiting the insult of President and PM, but nowadays those laws have morphed into a more modernized, euphemized, and secularized common 'libel/ slander' law. That is the path they take. Something very similar to Singapore now.

Have they ?

The only laws that I know that Indonesia has is not to insult religions; and the only laws that I know that Malaysia has - is not to insult the King, the Sultans, Islam, and not to place insults by questioning the Malay Rights.

Have the Malaysian Politicians taken out libel suits in the same manner that LKY is famous for - and which leads to the political opponents being completely bankrupt and permanently taken out of political circulation ?

I think this characteristic is quite unique to Asian societies, as I have never heard of Bush or Blair ever sued anyone for libel/ slander, despite, actually objectively speaking, they indeed have become victims many times.

This is a 'reflection' of 'social norms', so nobody can really blame LKY etc suing. It is not a matter of him, nor a matter of laws, nor application of laws, it is a matter of social beliefs. Since he live here and grew up here, and is a rather old man now, he will definitely reflect this value system. If you expect him to embrace 'Freedom of Speech' like the western model, then that will be the weird one instead.

The difference between Western Societies such as in the UK and USA - and even in Asian Societies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia - is that the Politicians are more tolerant towards robust political challenges that they face with no narrow sensitivities.

These politicians are open to competitive ideas, arguments, and competiting for the Hearts and Minds of their Electorates - as in Civilised Societies.

Our Singapore Politicians have become soft, and too accustomed to a protected environment since the Colonial Days when Singapore was given Internal Self-Rule.

It was a period where the political opponents of the MIW were locked up for their competing ideas - courtesy of the Colonial Government help with their ISD - and placed the MIW party in an environment that gave them the latitude of political space that is unobstructed by opposing votes to any of their policies and legislations put up in Parliament.

When one is living in a protected environment, one will always become addicted to the handicap given in the competition; and will always be dependent on that crutch to stay a few steps ahead of the competition.

This incumbent Ruling Party has without any reservation or shame have helped themselves immensely by hampering the other political parties from ever influencing or winning the Hearts and Minds of Singaporeans.

In this enterprise, they have imensely succeeded by using the entire print and broadcast media at their disposal - to keep Singaporeans in a continuous state of stupor in the constant bombardment by a mono-sycophantic sound that propagate only one idiot-logy from the Master's Voice.

But coming back to specifics, talking about CSJ, actually I am not clear myself, whether he is indeed a so-called 'Agressive man'.

I dont know him and I dont know the specifics of the case.

But I have a feeling, a gut insticnt, a guess, actually his portrayal as an 'agressive man' is a spin, an exaggeration by political spin-doctors. It is just a campaign or a spin to cast him with a certain image.

I did watch a few YouTube videos of him, he seem very normal to me. Quite moderate and well-grounded. Not insane or agressive or like to yell. Everything seem usual. The time when he was interviewed, or when he was selling his books to passerbys, or when he was blocked by policemen when he wanted to demonstrate. I haven't seen any 'agressive outbursts'.

So it makes me suspect this portrayal of him as 'agressive' , 'uncouth' , etc is just abit like.......spin.

Tell me which YouTube video has him behaving 'agressively' , I think maybe nobody has seen one. It is quite bizarre, but when an idea is repeated over and over again, it sticks, and an image is formed in people's minds. But maybe its not true.

So anyway, good night everybody, have a nice weekend.

Meat Pao.

If you are posing this question to WKS - as WP LTK had asked the same manner wondering if MSK is dead while in custody - you will probably be asked by WKS if you personally think that CSJ is ''a so-called 'Agressive man' ?"

Since you have said as much that - "I dont know him and I dont know the specifics of the case.......... {and the rest} " -

WKS would have replied to you in the same manner that he had given his non-reply to WP LTK's question :- " you have your own answer.."

Are you not satisfied with your own answer that you have thought out for yourself ?

Atobe SG

Genghis Khan had children, Atilia the Hun loved his family, Himmler was only a chicken farmer, Hitler was devout Christian and Osama a religious Muslim.

Nice personalities, object of role modelship, but they had shown their capacity to harm societies and other humans.

The difference between "slander" and "fair comment" is like darkness and daylight - and the difference between stupidity and intelligence is comparable in the same way.

With the kind of intelligence that has been consistent with the 'Grand Standing' efforts display for a wider audience, it is not unusual that stupidity creeps in at the point when vanity climax to blind simple common sense.

You are invited to propound your views to a Mongolian today about the harm that his forefathers did in conquering vast tracts of land across continents - and you will get more then an earful for your insulting and slanderous views towards Mongolian History that is based on your own perverse interpretation and understanding from your own parochial values.

Even the evil have served their purpose - as without the devious acts of Himmler, Hitler and Osama - do you think that human kind could have been galvanised to become one in purpose to defeat a common threat to Humanity ?

History seems to repeat itself in cycles, and Man has been tested once too often, and only to become complacent again and again towards the threats that is ever lurking to prevent the Human Spirit from soaring.

Are we not experiencing the same even in this day and age, when the majority have to be suppressed by a powerful minority that is determined to stay in power at any cost towards the larger community ?

It's not easy to judge a person. If CSJ had been an oridinary man, in time, we would have either overlook his faults or cast him aside in friendship. But CSJ is not an ordinary man. He is a party chief of a political group seeking to form the next government of Singapore and rule over us. Thus we have to judge him more carefully before we give him power.

The only way we can judge him fairly is to asses his public actions if he is worthy to rule.

If CSJ is not an ordiany man but a political personality - is this not the same of MM LKY, PM LHL, and everyone in the MIW Team that form the Government ?

If an ordinary man that seeks political prominence require more scrutiny, are we then to subject those already in power too lesser scrutinty ?

Have we forgotten that those in power today are holding so much more power then even before they became the Center of the Power - is it not more imperative that the present ones should be subjected to even more critically close scrutiny ?

If we are to judge CSJ fairly, should we not judge him by the Rules set by ordinary Singaporeans ?

Should we allow the Rules to be dictated by those whose own self-interest will arbitrarily raise the bars to those who dare to challenge them, but will lower the bar of scrutiny for themselves and their own ?

Fact 1. Misappropriation of research fund.

1993. He was sacked by NUS for misapporopiation of fund. It doesnt matter if it was a dollar or millions of dollars. He had absolutely no right to use research fund for his own individual use. That he had, only shows his character in contempt for money not his own. And character is something that cannot be changed overnight. Would the People dare put someone like him to watch over our CPF monies and tax revenues, worth an estimated US$300 billion?

Fact 1 - what mis-appropriation of research fund are you creating ?

Since when was CSJ charged for mis-appropriation of research funds ?

Are creating a new charge which CSJ has never been accused or found guilty of ?

Are now creating a "slander" with the "Freedom of Speech" given to you ?

In the first place, the charge of "False Financial Reimbursement Taxi-fare Claim" - itself was slanderous in that the claim was approved by the Faculty Head one year before CSJ stood for election as a SDP candidate.

The Faculty Head was Dr Vassoo - a PAP stalwart, who had invited CSJ to join the PAP - and which CSJ declined.

CSJ made a dent in GCT's Marine Parage GRC on the second attempt in a 1992 By-Election, and created shock-waves in being the first credibly qualified person to join the ranks of the Alternative Political Parties.

This had caused the Ruling Party to over-react to prevent more professionals and better qualified from joining the ranks of the Alternative Parties.

It was dubious at best for a Travel Claim approved and paid out one-year earlier to be brought up as a point of contention and used as a dubious charge of being dishonest on the part of CSJ for claiming an extra $2 in his taxi fare reimbursement claim.

Any reasonable person will know that even the same route taken on different days with different traffic conditions will cost differently; and there are more then one single route to any given destination in Singapore.

In any case, how should CSJ know which is the shortest and cheapest fare if he allow the taxi driver to take the most ''honest'' route as the Taxi Company had instructed ?

The Second Charge of Dishonesty was similarly laughable - in that CSJ was accused of using NUS Funds to send the research papers of his wife to a university in the USA for assessment. CSJ had disputed this point in his insistence that the Faculty Head was informed that he will be including his wife's work with his research papers for assessment as the US University has approved of this joint effort.

When CSJ protested to all the charges, the NUS Faculty head sued CSJ for slander - and in a Singapore Court of Law in which Politicians sued by the Ruling Party has never stood a chance of impartiality - needless to say, CSJ fate was as good as sealed.

One need only ask if those vouchers for reimbursement of taxir fare and postages would have been brought up - if CSJ had accepted Dr Vassoo's invitation to join the Ruling Political Party as an Election Candidate ?

Fact 2. Biting the hand that fed him.

SDP was led by MP Chiam ST. MP Chiam give CSJ the chance to power, but in the end, he kicked out MP Chiam. Later, CSJ insinuated that MP Chiam was acting on behalf of the ruling party. CSJ was sued for defamation by MP Chiam, which MP Chiam won in an open court.

You seem to follow the Bear's efforts at deriding CSJ in the same style and with the same vigor - calling him "an attention seeking whore" in the same manner as the Bear; and now perpetuating a lie favored by the Bear that "CSJ bit the hand that fed him" as a twist from the Bear's favorite in "CSJ backstabbing CST".

With the quality of accuracy that you have displayed - do you even know the exact words in the statement that CSJ was supposed to have made and which CST claims libel ?

Fact 3. Slander, lies and half truths to power

CSJ was never shy to slander, spread lies and half truths to gain power. You and i are more than familiar with his cases too much to mention here again. He was given a fair trial with an independent judiciary to asses his claims, yet each time, under vow, he had no evidences. If one has no evidence, but spread lies, it will hurt the image and integrity of the innocent. If the innocent does not take action, trust and integrity will erode, chaos will reign, more so if the innocent is a head of State.

Only in the mind of a juvenile will think that one can simply gain power - and take those power from the Ruling Political Party - by entering politics played on an unlevel playing field, and based on rules interpreted ad hoc by the Ruling Political Party.

Only a mind that has been dulled with the sycophantic sound will believe that the Singapore Judiciary is independent in their decisions on political matters.

Only a fool will believe will believe that regurgitated food is better for digestion then eating fresh food.

Does the innocent need to be afraid of more light to shine onto the dark corners that they tend to hide away their ''supposedly honest" acts ?

Can chaos fall so suddenly on Singapore when trust and integrity erode ?

Can 50 years of social, educational, cultural and economic progress become so fragile that its foundation is so flimsy - so structurally weak - that it cannot withstand any attack to the basis of Singapore existence - its integrity and trust ?

Surely, we must then question what kind of integrity and trust have we wasted 50 years of our time in building ?

Or are you simply ''Grand Standing" in attempting to exagerate a simple issue, making your own juvenile intellect become several "story taller" - as in "tall tales" ?

Fact 4. No respect for laws. Civil Disobedience

Singapore is a lawful country. We got so far as a nation because each of us know that the law is fair, equal and for everyone. Yet, he, CSJ, who seek to rule over us, continually broke the law to justify his powerlust. He doesnt give a damn to laws, and does as he pleases, such as apply for a permit to speak at the speakers corner. Easy enough, just apply to the police and usually one get it, yet he refused and went ahead, forcing the authorities no choice but to act, for the law applies to all.

Even before he gain power, he is prepared to break laws. What more if he holds power, what would he tyrannically do to us innocent civilian citizens?

Is Singapore a lawful country as you have claimed ?

If your claim that you are not Member from the Ruling Political Party - perhaps it will do you well to make an indepth study to the Attorney-General's exercise in idiot-logy in explaining that politicians inside a Polling Station - watching the electorates submitting their ballots - have NOT contravene the Election Law that prevent any candidates from loitering 100 meters radius from a Polling Station.

Did CSJ break the law, or was he not exercising his Rights as guaranteed by the Singapore Constitution ?

Was it not a fact that the amendments to the Statutes - as passed by the ONE-Party dominated Parliament has resulted in the Singapore Constitution being bastardised, to the extent that basic rights guaranteed by the Singapore Constitution have all been removed - and now dispensed as privileges according to the terms and conditions of the Ruling Political Party at the prodding of their Executive Cadres ?

There is more, and you can research for yourself for an objective view, but i will stop here. I am not attempting to change your mind, or asking you to support or not to support him. I only seek that you critically analyse his actions and base your own judgement to act as you will. We have only one vote, and one vote to get it right not only for ourselves, but for others in our society as well.

For one who consistently claim 'you are not what you are' - you certainly have done alot more then what you claim you have not done, or not even doing.

If after writing so much and with such inaccurate thoughtless information - you are not asking anyone to support or not to support "him" - what is the purpose for your efforts at maliciously writing the information with such inaccuracies as have been exposed ?

Fair Comments is available to everyone who has an opinion on those who have stepped into the Public Spotlight - and even if the statements or opinions made to the character of the Public Person are not accurate, it remains lawfully as Fair Comment.

It is when malice is shown towards the person - then an inaccurate statement will become slander.

When a statement is accurate and made public with vigor - it is not slander - as vigorous exposure is different from malice in the intent.

For a juvenile, you have a vast propesity in "Big Talk - and with little substance to show" - it confirm the old saying that - 'empty vessel makes the most noive' ?

If you can even think for yourself and your own family - let alone think for others within our society - there will be less trouble for others.

If you can think - have you considered who will benefit more from the millions that this government will spend to purchase an obscenely expensive crutch that cost millions of dollars for LKY's Ministers - so that they will not be corrupted ?

DeerHunter SG