Originally posted by dragg:
come up with something more credible in your argument. i am sure
you can do better than this.
Taunting?
Planned to keep things short and sweet with a simple fact, but am
still dragg-ed (no pun intended) down for an argument. Well, I
could end up being called retarded, but since it's not the first
time anyway and it's a good mental exercise to keep awake, why
not...
Let's first nitpick at your argument: "if you say something about
someone without proof it is defamation. defamation is against the
law!!!"
Correction: Saying something about someone without proof is not
defamation. It is merely making an allegation. An allegation, upon
further investigation and inquiry, has the capacity to be proven
true or false. Only when the allegation is proven to be false could
the subject exercise the legal right to sue for defamation.
So what is defamation? It is the act of making or publishing an
imputation, verbal or written, concerning any person or collection
of persons, with intent to harm the reputation of such person(s).
The burden of proof usually lies on the plaintiff to establish the
defendant's "intent to harm his or her reputation".
Do the government not know that the taxi drivers, coffeeshop ah
peks, and almost everybody else is ranting against their policies
every day? Why is there no action taken (at least to public
knowledge)? There are many reasons, but in my opinion (strictly
mine), the most important reason is that defamation suits give
undue recognition to the defamatory statements, and bring the
plaintiff to the same level as the defendant. And in the case of
taxi drivers and coffeeshop ah peks, that constitutes a greater
harm to the reputation of the government if any legal action were
to be taken against them.
In case you may have misunderstood, let me make it clear that I
have not once stated my support for Chen to post his blog comments
in this thread. Among other factual observations, I merely hinted
at regret over the drastic action taken by the Chairman of a
national statutory board against a young punk student who had
gotten too carried away with his frustrations over grade
requirements. Why? Because for all the reasons stated above, such
an action brought a greater harm than good to Yeo's and A*Star's
standing in the eyes of the people, not only in Singapore but also
in other parts of the world.
Satisfied with this argument? Felt like I just finished running the
Special Olympics. Phew.
