According to news reports, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has sued long time blogger Leong Sze Hian (Leong) over a Facebook (FB) post whereby Leong shared an article published by Malaysian online news media, TheCoverage.my. The article alleged that Singapore and Lee were targets of an investigation in relation to the now infamous 1MDB scandal.

The contents of Malaysian article was based on content by States Times Review (STR) which have since been debunked and Clare Rewcastle, the investigative journalist whose article was allegedly used as a basis for the STR article has publicly stated that she had been misquoted. In short, the STR article is inaccurate at best and completely wrong at worst.

While I understand the need for PM Lee to clear his name, I personally think that asking TheCoverage.my and STR to remove the offending article would be sufficient. PM Lee would then have both cleared the air and also assumed the moral high ground. By tackling the publications hard, Lee could run the risk of looking like a bully (even if that is not his intention). This is the subject of a whole other discussion altogether. For the purposes of this article, I would like to focus on the actions that have been taken against Leong. Is Leong guilty of defamation simply for sharing an article on his FB page?

Leong did not write or participate in any way, shape or form to the offending article. All he did was share a link. We all do this on our FB pages sharing articles from child rearing to the lives of reality TV stars. These articles may or may not be one hundred percent true but we don’t have the lawyers of these celebrities threatening to sue our pants off? Since when is sharing an article tantamount to defamation? It is also important to note that Leong complied with a demand by the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) on 10 Nov to take down the Facebook share within six hours.

If Leong is indeed taken to court and found guilty, this sets a dangerous precedent for virtually any entity (ranging from big corporations to rich individuals) with the money to pursue law suits to bully anyone into not speaking up. Is this the kind of society we want to live in whereby money can be used as a tool to subjugate?

Secondly, what exactly constitutes defamation? Leong did not write the article. Nor did he promote the article with any of his own comments or opinions. In other words, it was a “blank” share. Is this really defamation? After all, he was in no position to verify the truth of the article. He also complied with the take down notice. The only thing he did not do was issue a public apology. A refusal to apologise is not defamation in itself. Has everyone who “shared” the article been similarly prosecuted? Not that I am advocating lawsuits but if it is indeed the case that only Leong is being singled out – then we have to ask why this is the case?

STR was the source of the offending article. Isn’t tackling STR enough?

Last but not least, I note that the Straits Times (ST) has printed a rather misleading headline. It’s headline said “PM Lee sues financial adviser Leong Sze Hian for defamation”. This is not entirely true. The ST headline makes it seem like it was Leong who was behind the offending article when in reality, he merely shared it. Is this not misrepresentation on the part of ST?

Further, this article is in the “premium” section of ST which means that the general public may not be able to read beyond the misleading headline. Does this not make Leong seem like he is guilty of something that he isn’t? Could this be tantamount to defamation on the part of ST as well? Arguably if Leong had the deep pockets to pursue a lawsuit, he could as well? 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【选举】徐顺全将攻打武吉巴督单选区

民主党秘书长徐顺全,今日(21日)表态将在来临选举攻打武吉巴督单选区。 在今日走访武吉巴督购物中心时,徐顺全向媒体证实此事。 2016年,由于原议员王金发涉及婚外情而辞职,武吉巴督选区补选。徐顺全曾代表民主党上阵,对垒行动党候选人穆仁理,而后者以61.21巴仙多数票取胜。 目前武吉巴督有2万9389选民。 在今早徐顺全官方脸书专页发布的直播片段,也可见有党员穿着印有“徐顺全武吉巴督”字样的T恤。 同时民主党也向居民推广“四要一不”(Four Yes, One No)竞选宣言,同时强调新加坡人民在疫情下的需求必须获得照顾,以及全国面对的长期问题。 民主党四要指的是:暂停消费税、倡议裁员福利、退休者收入和以民为先。“一不”指的是该党拒绝放眼一千万人口的规划。

Don’t give up on Singapore's Special Olympics

~by: Ellery Aruldoss~ Hanako sits comfortably at one end of the sofa,…

易华仁:防假消息法料下半年生效

通讯与新闻部长易华仁在昨日(15日)接受彭博社访问,指出预期能在下月二读及三读通过《防止网络假消息及网络操纵法》。若按照正常立法程序,该草案有望在今年下半年生效。 针对反对有关草案的声音,易华仁重申防假消息法不会用来阻碍批评、个人观点、恶搞或讽喻。“我们希望所有国民都是知情、有建设性地讨论,思想的竞辩应是基于事实的。” 他补充政府寻求“在新加坡最能行得通的方案”,而采取“中间路线”,言论自由不受拘束。 “我们想针对的是“假消息”–或者律师会称之为“不实事实”,如何影响公共利益。” 他指出,只有当假消息影响公共利益时,政府才会发出更正指示。 对于防假消息法第三部分,对于涉嫌发布假消息者发布更正指示,易华仁解释,这不是为了压制信息,而是让读者自行去分辨真伪。 针对防假消息法的刑罚,易华仁提到世界各地的相关立法,也有一些较严厉的惩罚,事实上新加坡政府已经调整过,以针对那些不遵守指示、在网络刻意散播假消息者、且他们清楚知道将构成公共危害。 “建立网络管理机制” 他说,从法律角度来看,这是较高的裁决门槛,“我认为我们是在建立网络管理机制。迄今为止,社交媒体舆论和网络的事实都未获得规范管理。”易华仁在受访时如是指出。 彭博社主持人也提出,有者质疑防假消息法,赋予部长过大的权力,对此易华仁坚信,已有足够的制衡机制,“即便部长可以发出更正指示,但是我们设立法律原则,来裁定何谓意见还是事实……这是由法庭来决定的。” “所以,这不是政府决策者可以任意裁定的。”他强调。 “不仅科技公司,政府也要采取主动”…

郭俨进泵井溺毙案:一级准尉法立被判13个月监禁

民防服役人员郭俨进中士被推入泵井溺毙一案,一级准尉法立(Mohamed Farid Mohd Saleh)犯下教唆他人做出鲁莽行为导致他人重伤罪名成立,昨天(20日)下午被判13个月监禁。 法立去年5月13日涉嫌指示将即将退役的郭俨进推入12米的泵井,导致溺毙身亡。同案被告亦包括将郭俨进推入死亡泵井的努尔法特瓦(Fatwa),法瓦特在日前已承认罪行,并接受年4星期监禁,目前正在服刑中。 控方对此表示,被告作为现场最高级别的民防人员,不仅没有履行保护安危的义务和责任,反而唆使法瓦特将过眼睛郭俨进推入泵井。 “法瓦是在被告的唆使下采取行动,因此,被告应与法瓦受到相对的惩处。在本案中不应有任何的差别对待”,控方表示。 控方指出,鉴于被告在第一时间不如法瓦一样,一开始就认罪,明显缺乏悔意,因此将刑法提高到至少14个月以上。 然而,被告的律师则争取四至八个月的刑法,他表明,尽管法立有作出指示,却没料掉法瓦特会以偷袭的方式将郭俨进推入其中,而且事后法立也相当后悔。 地方法官则表示,刑法本身必须反映本案所造成的伤害,与所应当的罪责,欲透过此案向公众传达鲁莽与冒险的行为是不能容忍,必须准备承担相关法律罪责,最重要是向军警人员传达类似陋习应杜绝的信息。 另外,法官也同意控方立场,认为被告已在民防部队服务长达11年,是清楚“整人”活动应被禁止,并了解泵井的深度和黑暗,却依然唆使将郭俨进推入泵井,因此刑罚也起到阻摄作用。 除了法特瓦与法立,另名被告阿迪哈扎里(Adighazali…