Whilst I did not have the full account of the Durai case, I had some opportunity, based on information I got, to study it purely for knowledge.

The long and short of it all, is that the so-called “scandalous” issues that were raised were in my mind not scandalous in the breaking-the-law sense. For example, things like flying on first class tickets “cheaper”, using company cars, etc, may not in themselves break any rules. After all, the board of NKF has been given powers to approve the actions of its executive officers. So technically, all the people on the NKF board and executives were playing by the rules, albeit to their own advantages. I guess morally speaking, their actions were somewhat dubious.

So technically, Durai could have challenged on the basis that the ST played up these issues, which were themselves technically not illegal, to imply something more sinister. Much in the way, for instance, the Lees have done with all their court cases.

Assuming that Singapore still practices common law, in spirit, as in English law, than the Lees’ cases would have been instituted as case laws and technically Durai would have won!

As ever, technicality is one thing, reality is another.

Yes I agree that Durai had no choice but to discontinue the suit; but it is entirely possible that that case would have been one of the few instances when the defence of justification was made out.

Another interesting point is that if i remember correctly the defence of fair comment was successfully employed by ST regarding a piece they did on a Christian group known as the House of Isreal.

On this point about ST deploying the “fair comment” defence. You cited the Durai v ST case and indicated that in that instance it exemplified a successful outcome. Ok I note that you use the word success in quotes. So I am guessing you are expecting people to read between the lines, so to speak.

Anyway, as I saw it, the “fair comment” defence really never took effect because Durai himself chose not to contest further. So technically, it was in a sense a default judgement rather than a case won on the basis of “fair comment” defence. Had the case gone on, would the judge have award the suit to Durai? It’s anybody’s guess as to how the judge would have drawn inference.

Yes I was referring to Singapore law. I am not that familiar with the approach in other jurisdictions, save that in the US, there is no way a politician can bring an action because of the fear that such a law would prevent valid criticism which is deemed as a citizen’s right.

With regards to truth, the truthfulness of a statement is a defence to defamation. However this is an extremely difficult defence and to my mind I only know of a single instance where it “succeeded”; when Durai sued ST. From what i gather, in Singapore it is very easy to defame someone, but of course you can escape liability if you can come under the defences. Of course ur scenario is entirely possible given that defamation can be implied, but i know nothing concrete about that.

Are you talking a defamation law in the theoretical abstract form or how the law is “implemented” in Singapore?

As Adrian pointed out. In Singapore legal jurisdiction, there is no statue or, for that matter, case laws that “defines” whether a comment is considered fair or otherwise. Neither is there anything in law (statues and case laws) that demarcate facts from opinions. As far as I can tell. Unless, Ned you know better.

If you look at all the cases that Lee Kuan Yew and others have taken out, all have been won on how the fact that the defendants had used words or statements that the judge deemed to be defamatory. In all these cases the plaintiff won NOT because the statement were untrue or not an opinion. You could be saying things that are true but you could still loose your case. Because the judge could still say that you have bought up a truthful statement in order to defame someone.

For example, if you said I saw Tan Ah Kow, walking in a Red Light District in the context where Ah Kow is running for election. And if you prove that was true — say you produce a photo — that Ah Kow did do so. But Tan Ah Kow could turn the table round and say that you deliberately made the statement to demean Tan Ah Kow because you IMPLIED that he visits prostitutes. And since you can only prove Ah Kow was walking but not actually visited prostitute. Under Singapore jurisdiction you could still loose, if the judge deemed that to be the case.

In Singapore Law it appears that there is no way of entering “fair comment” as a defence. What you pointed out may work in English Law but I am not sure how it would work in Singapore.

Of all the changes and progress in S’pore since the 50’s, I’m fortunate to live long enough to see broadband, internet and what’s happening on the blogs.

If not for the blogs with their alternative viewpoints, the msm would have it easier brainwashing peoples’ minds.

The interest and responses generated in the Lees vs Chees case has been interesting. I must admit I learned some after reading the submission by Chee Soon Juan to Belinda Ang at http://yoursdp.org/

What’s beyond expectation and amazed me most is Gopalan Nair’s challenge to MM Lee Kuan Yew to sue him at http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Another test on integrity?

Times, they are a changing.

feedmetothefish

under the law of defamation, the intended effect of the words is irrelevant in construing whether they are defamatory. The Judge uses a hypothetical construct, called the reasonable man, to determine whether the statement is defamatory; namely whether the statement would lower the standing of the victim in the eyes of a reasonable person. This appears to be a rather easy threshhold to cross; see the previous case where the statement “Where is the money” was held to be defamatory.

One defence to defamation is fair comment Whether the statement is an opinion is relevant to the defence of fair comment. However to rely on the defence there must be some facts to support the statement. Needless to say it is rather difficult to rely on such a defence.

Using words like “seemed”, “appear to” still means implies to silly coffers …

Don’t believe , read this about conspiracy theory JAYAKUMAR,
http://singaporeelection.blogspot.com/2007/07/prof-jayakumar-reprimanded-sylvia-lim.html

Puttting some statements seem to implicate thing even though it is not directly.

I wonder what happen if Sylian Lim is not in the parliament and say this elsewhere…

Er… I think under Singapore jurisdiction, the law of defamation is based on the intended effects of words.

should be:

Er… I think under Singapore jurisdiction, the law of defamation is based on the intended, not necessarily actual, effects of words.