(12-06-2014, 03:23 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]With limited experience, I will consider the protocol above is proper. We do give chance, but we need an insurance of black and white.
I'm referring to the part about the defamation. It's entirely right to dismiss the staff due to work related concerns, such as the ones that TTSH stated. It's the part thereafter that is the issue. Is this unilaterally applied when to all cases of defamation as well? What if you post a restaurant review and the restaurant serves a notice of intent to sue and both parties choose to settle out of court? Does that state as an admission of "stating falsehoods" which an employer can tend take the opportunity to dismiss the employee?
The whole issue is because it is played out in public eye doesn't mean it is more significant than the principles behind what is a rightful dismissal. As specuvestor has said, it would have saved TTSH the issue of explaining the situation had it stuck to just saying for work related reasons.
(12-06-2014, 01:03 PM)kbl Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Sgd san,
here sir..
First, all those who were here in 1965 and were citizens or subsequently made citizens is a true blue Singaporean. All born and bred and served NS is another. All those new citizens who have served NS is also another. This latter category is to accept new citizens who are willing to serve the nation like all NSmen.
Based on your definition, NS is the only criteria for true-blue Singaporeans? Girls and daughters of Singapore, better apply elsewhere. Your citizenship is neither recognised, or needed.
(12-06-2014, 01:43 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]But almost 10 years into office suddenly we now have internet restriction laws and we starting to see defamation lawsuits over again. Are we now going back to previous times?
The government is attempting to "define" certain boundaries for bloggers to play in, while there are those who will push the envelop and see how far they can take things. These to-fro to me is part of the process of establishing that boundary. I do think they (PAP, or more general the government) are more willing to welcome and tolerate debate, but are uncomfortable that they cannot completely control the arena like what they have with traditional print media.
(12-06-2014, 01:43 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I had expected LHL to just accept that token of $5k as a symbolic gesture an admission of "wrong doing" on Roy's part and moved on would have shown patience and magnanimity of PM and Roy is after just a small fry. This now looks bad.
If Roy had stopped after the
first letter, it would have been a reasonable assumption for one and fair expectation among the public that the PM accept his offer for damages, even if it is S$5k. Things he did after that are foolhardy, and to the extreme. He clearly wants to pick a fight, and he's going to get it. He's going to have his day in court, get shredded like grated cheese, and done for and current cheerleaders will move onto the next issue to flame the government on.
(12-06-2014, 04:56 PM)thefarside Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 01:03 PM)kbl Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Sgd san,
here sir..
First, all those who were here in 1965 and were citizens or subsequently made citizens is a true blue Singaporean. All born and bred and served NS is another. All those new citizens who have served NS is also another. This latter category is to accept new citizens who are willing to serve the nation like all NSmen.
Based on your definition, NS is the only criteria for true-blue Singaporeans? Girls and daughters of Singapore, better apply elsewhere. Your citizenship is neither recognised, or needed.
Good evening Thefarside san and everyone.
Aiyo..u never read the link izit?
First, all those who were here in 1965 and were citizens or subsequently made citizens is a true blue Singaporean. All born and bred and served NS is another. All those new citizens who have served NS is also another. This latter category is to accept new citizens who are willing to serve the nation like all NSmen.
For the ladies or those who are not eligible to do NS, a 10 year citizenship should be a reasonable time to qualify one as a true blue Singaporean.
http://therealsingapore.com/content/what...ingaporean
(12-06-2014, 05:05 PM)thefarside Wrote: [ -> ]The government is attempting to "define" certain boundaries for bloggers to play in, while there are those who will push the envelop and see how far they can take things. These to-fro to me is part of the process of establishing that boundary. I do think they (PAP, or more general the government) are more willing to welcome and tolerate debate, but are uncomfortable that they cannot completely control the arena like what they have with traditional print media.
Big assumption on your part though, the government has never been very interested to define clearly the boundaries. It has attempted to limit the boundaries on discussion online, but that's not the same as defining it. You can see it from the MDA saga.
(12-06-2014, 01:43 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]
If Roy had stopped after the first letter, it would have been a reasonable assumption for one and fair expectation among the public that the PM accept his offer for damages, even if it is S$5k. Things he did after that are foolhardy, and to the extreme. He clearly wants to pick a fight, and he's going to get it. He's going to have his day in court, get shredded like grated cheese, and done for and current cheerleaders will move onto the next issue to flame the government on.
He has been punching above his weight yes, but applying post hoc rationalisation to this as to what the PM will do is a bit well, off the mark. I'm no supporter of Roy but the PM served the letter with conditions in the first place, meaning they were prepared to go to court if necessary.
(12-06-2014, 05:19 PM)yourusualkid Wrote: [ -> ]He has been punching above his weight yes, but applying post hoc rationalisation to this as to what the PM will do is a bit well, off the mark. I'm no supporter of Roy but the PM served the letter with conditions in the first place, meaning they were prepared to go to court if necessary.
I did say mine was an assumption, and a fair expectation. Whether it was his intention to actually let this guy off the hook we'll never know. Maybe he wanted to make an example of him anyway, and Roy made it so easy. Compare it with Alex Au, another no less fierce critic of the government and LHL who knows when to back down when required.
If you are going to serve anyone any letter, you have to be prepared to go to court, no?
(12-06-2014, 04:54 PM)yourusualkid Wrote: [ -> ]It's the part thereafter that is the issue. Is this unilaterally applied when to all cases of defamation as well? What if you post a restaurant review and the restaurant serves a notice of intent to sue and both parties choose to settle out of court? Does that state as an admission of "stating falsehoods" which an employer can tend take the opportunity to dismiss the employee?
If you spread false information knowingly, it reflects your lack of integrity. I do not know of any employer that will tolerate such employee. For your case study of restaurant review, it depends on what the reviewer writes in the review. If he knowingly writes something that is false, and the restaurant knows about it, the restaurant will take the necessary actions to protect its interest and that includes using the legal process. If the reviewer's employer gets to know about this, will the employer sack him? Speaking for myself? I will if I know the facts.
(12-06-2014, 05:19 PM)yourusualkid Wrote: [ -> ]He has been punching above his weight yes, but applying post hoc rationalisation to this as to what the PM will do is a bit well, off the mark. I'm no supporter of Roy but the PM served the letter with conditions in the first place, meaning they were prepared to go to court if necessary.
Punching above his weight
(12-06-2014, 05:57 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]If you spread false information knowingly, it reflects your lack of integrity. I do not know of any employer that will tolerate such employee. For your case study of restaurant review, it depends on what the reviewer writes in the review. If he knowingly writes something that is false, and the restaurant knows about it, the restaurant will take the necessary actions to protect its interest and that includes using the legal process. If the reviewer's employer gets to know about this, will the employer sack him? Speaking for myself? I will if I know the facts.
Yes and if you are the employer you will be hearing partial information, and making a judgement on a person's integrity based on such information. How do you ascertain what is "knowingly false"? And be careful of what you state there regarding a lack of integrity, there are many such things that change over time and it's a very grey area to decide who lacks integrity and who doesn't.