Any better alternative for Civil defamation?

lionnoisy SG

lot of opposition party got sued

2.If u were Lee or Goh and felt defamed by some one,what could u do?
---Arrest him under ISA;
---just shoot him;
---put him in an plane to US and cancel his passport,making him exile;
---forgive and forget;
---sue him.
---just deny and forget
---pretend heard nothing

3.To sue is the most civilized way.If u were the leader,your option
is limited.U either deny or admit or pretend u have not heard.
Just deny is not enough to uphold ur authority.

4.U can say what the opposition says do not warrant to defamation.
But i dunt see any better way than suing.Unless they are Saint,
always forgive and forget.They are human.

5.In business or politics,u have to prepare to pay a price if u make
a mistake.Follow the rules of the game.Look what u say.

6.I remember Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang said they
still can make a living even they are opposition party.They have
never been sued.Take a leaf from them.Buy them a coffee.
They may share with u how not to be sued for so many years and still be MP

Chiam See Tong,
founder of Singapore Democratic Party but kicked out by CSJ,found himself
not sued for more than 20 years as MPHis lawyer practise
still can support his 2 kids to study overseas.

Low Thia Khiang,a contractor,also can survive.

7.Would u respect and truth ur leader if they are accused and
always forgive ?

ShutterBug SG

I think if you're afraid of being punched in a boxing match, don't compete.

Same; if PAP is afraid of being down-talked, don't conduct any GE.

robertteh SG

The alternative to authoritarianism and top-down system which would perpetually be suing oppositions to disable them from taking part in democratic election process is Objective Management.

By setting out the objectives, programs and policies in objective people-friendly way, people will be empoered to take part and reach for goals and objectives in a fair and competitive manner without feeling suspicions or wrong doings,

Leaders must not be so kiasu as many of the oppositions who are sued are just doing their part for the good of the country. Good leaders must be people who can set personal examples, and who are prepared to govern all tasks objectively with openness and accountability as the latter is the only way to involve all which will assure of mass results.

Good government is one where politicians are able to see larger goals than their own narrow party interests. The judiciary must serve the people objective and dispense justice with equity and fairness and not be seen as pandering to the wishes of the power that be. MPs must be left to play their part without being cowered by their own party uppish personal wishes, intuitions and private agendas.

Another name to such a system is probably : leading by example or good corporate governance. Now under the present system, the top is overly concerned with their own personality cult and leadership and egos to give way to collective objective governance.

It is now after the recent lessens from Asian Financial Crisis for the present leaders to understand their shortcomings in personalising leadership and change to collective objective leadership which is the only system which will bring about widespread progress through mass participation in progress.

But it is easy said than done. The process management is only possible when tasks can be carried out in empowering work processes attainable by all. Read more at www.managefranchise.blogspot.com That is the alternative to suing the oppositions for defamations or doctoring of election processes with GRC which in the long run will impede progress of a country.

Atobe SG

If you believe in 'respect and truth' perhaps you may wish to consider the facts in a more accurate manner :

Did CSJ kicked out Chiam See Tong from the SDP ?

Consider the following Report :

However the rise of the SDP was not to be, as differences soon emerged in 1993 about what the party should do with Chee Soon Juan's hunger strike which happened after he was sacked from his university post when he was found to be misappropriating hundreds of dollars of research funds by the National University of Singapore (NUS).

Chee Soon Juan claimed this was a political vendetta plotted by the ruling party (one of the PAP MPs is a NUS professor; Mr S.R. Vasoo). The PAP has however denied the accusation and insisted the offense was real. Chiam See Tong urged Chee to stop the accusations and get back to real business.

However, Chiam was not supported by most of the party and the Central Executive Committee voted to get rid of him as general secretary and replace him with Chee. Supporters of Chiam quickly left the party and formed the Singapore People's Party in 1994.

As if this was not enough, the party even decided to strip Chiam See Tong's membership in the party. Had he lost his membership, under the current law, he would also have to lose his seat in parliament.

This invoked unhappiness among opposition supporters in Potong Pasir.

Chiam took up this issue to the courts which ruled in favor of him as it was illegal to do so.

Hence between 1993 and 1997, Chiam kept his seat in parliament officially as a SDP member. In the 1997 elections, he took over from Sin Kek Tong as the secretary-general (leader) of the Singapore People's Party.

Li Ka Shing SG

Friend, they sue because they want to bully the opposition.

Not because of what.

In Singapore, they have decided to do it through legal means.

I other countries, could be assassination, bribery, extortion, election fraud, false rumours, etc.

It is a dirty trick.

Lowclassman SG

All politicians are dirty...pap no exception.

NewAge SG

I will just say the faule lies with the way defamation is rule in S’pore. If the queen coucil is still around they may most propably threw the defamation suits out. The reason is due to the different guidelines of defamation. If u want less opp MP to get a law suit its best to change the law. U cannot blame MPs for using the law since it works both ways.

euphratis SG

We are a gracious society, politic here are "Clean & Green"...They don't do assassination, bribery, extortion, election fraud & etc.

juz hang u by the balls out to dry.........tat's all.

BillyBong SG

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
[b]lot of opposition party got sued

2.If u were Lee or Goh and felt defamed by some one,what could u do?
---Arrest him under ISA;
---just shoot him;
---put him in an plane to US and cancel his passport,making him exile;
---forgive and forget;
---sue him.
---just deny and forget
---pretend heard nothing

3.To sue is the most civilized way.If u were the leader,your option
is limited.U either deny or admit or pretend u have not heard.
Just deny is not enough to uphold ur authority.

4.U can say what the opposition says do not warrant to defamation.
But i dunt see any better way than suing.Unless they are Saint,
always forgive and forget.They are human.

5.In business or politics,u have to prepare to pay a price if u make
a mistake.Follow the rules of the game.Look what u say.

6.I remember Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang said they
still can make a living even they are opposition party.They have
never been sued.Take a leaf from them.Buy them a coffee.
They may share with u how not to be sued for so many years and still be MP

Chiam See Tong,
founder of Singapore Democratic Party but kicked out by CSJ,found himself
not sued for more than 20 years as MPHis lawyer practise
still can support his 2 kids to study overseas.

Low Thia Khiang,a contractor,also can survive.

7.Would u respect and truth ur leader if they are accused and
always forgive ?

[/b]

A defamation suit is the best way to declare your innocence and claim damages to right any discredit to your reputation. Legally, it is the only recourse to address a 'wrongful' statement made against you; note that i place 'wrongful' in inverted commas as the determination and presentation of the case can be warped to suit your own ends.

The NKF was probably the one clear example of how legal defamation suits were used to con the public into thinking that allegations of funds mismanagement and unethical use of public monies were wholely 'untrue'. Of couse, tks to another GLC in SPH, all the lies were exposed and futher auditing by KPMG revealed the disgusting truth of a system built based on a similar platform as our Ruling Party.

In such cases, of defendants vs the state or state-owned enterprise, it is the intimidating fear of david vs goliath. Money talks and in such cases, money buys you the best lawyers. And the margin for a fair and balanced trial is almost completely eroded the moment you cannot compete with a bottomless cash reserve of million-dollar ministers.

Better to settle out of court then risk total monetary ruin, even if you possibly have a case.

As such, how can anyone truly believe WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? Even if the plaintiff is completely and unreservingly exonerated?

Who can trust a judgement or court settlement based almost entirely on financial pressure?

As the saying goes: if you argue correctly, you're never wrong....

claudetnt SG

The NKF saga highlighted another important aspect of how defamation suits work.

We need to have not only good "connections" but loads of money to fight defamation suits.