There is the other side of the coin, which denotes defamation as
being highly abused when there is a judiciary that chooses to
interpret it too closely to the aggrieved, especially in our
situation.
What then does it say?In a more pluralistic society, one may see
allegation A as being more chock-ful of truth, and in a more
totalitarian society in the political context, that same allegation
A might be hard to back up with facts, because we lack a FOIA
legislation, and also end up being construed as defamation when
even it is silently implicit and acknowledged by a majority who are
in no position of affect or even have a minute impact on the
judgment.
This is the grey area afflicting Singapore today, where the
implicit is well-known, yet cannot be said, nor published.Take NKF
for example, what was construed as defamation was later to be
proven true.Yet how many here have resources, or the propituous
convergence of interests that led SPH to be placed strategically to
be the "whistleblower"?
Worth a ponder, for we do not know how many of these "defamatory"
statements are more truthful than their defenses are.
