It has by now been widely reported that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) is suing long time blogger Leong Sze Hian (Leong) for alleged defamation over Leong sharing an article on Facebook (FB) that has allegedly defamed PM Lee.

Leong has clarified that he was not behind the offensive article and nor did he add to it via captions or commentaries. He merely shared it. Just like millions of other FB users worldwide. Leong has clicked “share” on his FB page.

Does this mean that anyone who shares any article (without commentary) that the authorities deem defamatory will be potentially guilty of defamation? That sets a dangerous precedent for possible misuse. It also leads to uncertainty because invariably, it will be unevenly applied. There are just too many people sharing articles and information daily on a global perspective.

Also, does “blank sharing” (ie sharing articles without commentary) an article constitute defamation?

The government has criticised FB recently over its refusal to take down a certain article from the States Times Review (STR)  which had implied that Singapore and PM Lee were somehow involved in the 1MDB article. While the contents of the STR article have been debunked, the government has used FB’s refusal to comply with the government’s request as a reason for why harsher regulations were necessary.

This apparent displeasure at FB and now suing Leong over an article on FB would lead one to think that the government has grave concerns over FB. If this were the case, why are certain prominent members of the government (PM Lee included) still active on FB? Surely, they should lead by example and shun FB?

At the end of the day, it cannot be one rule for the government and another rule for the rest of the country.

In other words, while decrying the dangers of FB, they are also still active users of FB. Could this send the message that the government is happy to harness the powers of FB for its own agenda but are not happy with others to do the same?

Further, could this create the impression that the government is more ready to take down individuals and not big powerful entities such as FB because individuals are more vulnerable and easier to get at? Could this (perhaps unwittingly) give off the “bully” image? Does the government want to come across as an entity that is prepared to cow its own citizens with lawsuits while allowing big corporations such as FB to “get away”?

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

Planning of medical education shows leadership deficit in the Ministry of Health

by Kok Ming Cheang Few people in Singapore took notice of the…

【冠状病毒19】曾一同出席会议 马国两名部长确诊冠病

据马来西亚媒体报导,曾一同出席内阁会议的两名部长:首相署部长慕斯达法和妇女、家庭及社会发展事务部长丽娜,相续确诊冠病19! 这使得所有曾出席上述会议的部长都要接受检测或居家隔离。丽娜哈伦的妇女部门也证实消息,并对于造成的不便致歉。 据了解,该名妇女部长确诊前一周还曾出席几个活动和会议,包括巡视彭亨劳勿县的水灾疏散中心等,还曾移交必需品给居民。

印总理与马国首相敦马会面,欲“讨回”争议传教士扎基尔

日前,在邻国马来西亚印度籍伊斯兰传教士扎基尔,因发表侮辱华印裔的言论,引起马国华印裔的不满,遭到警方调查。 昨日(5日)马国首相敦马在俄罗斯出席第5届东方经济论坛,与印度总理纳仁德拉莫迪会面,莫迪也趁机向敦马讨论有关引渡查基尔一事。 据马国媒体报道,扎基尔自2017年遭印度警方、反恐单位国家调查机构指控散播恐怖主义、洗黑钱、发动武装攻击罪名,全球通缉扎基尔。扎基尔于2017年6月开始,在获得马国庇护,获得永久居留权,频频在大马宗教讲座。 根据《印度时报》报导,印度外交部长维嘉哥卡勒透露,莫迪向马哈迪阐明,引渡扎基尔一事对两国非常重要,印度会继续与大马保持联系。 印度政府屡次要求马国引渡回国,但遭马国政府拒绝。今年6月,印度再次向马国申请引渡,但被内阁拒绝。 8月,扎基尔在演讲中批评华裔,暗指要华裔离开,同时也提及印裔,表示马来西亚大部分印裔效忠印度总理莫迪,多过效忠马来西亚,引起各界不满,并纷纷要求他“滚回”印度。警方已援引刑事法典第504(蓄意侮辱)条文展开调查。