-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Fair and Just Society : Han Hui Hui at Hong Lim
- Thread starter TopSage
- Start date
All lawyers in SG will insist on being paid no matter win or lose, its only how much as per prior agreement with client. For those legal aid one, I think no matter win/lose same amount. You're right, no incentive, its only personal reputation at stake in the courtroom if lawyer does a fucked up job there. And even then some lawyers heck care about personal reputation ..........
Definitely more than 20% friend... I can confirm this. Cause my this lawyer of mine are not just client n partners but we're like buddies... Alot of things i ask him to do for me is FOC!!! He told me is more than 20% say maybe in an average region of 25%
Last edited:
Is their reputation at stake....
Which is why my lawyer got a recognition reward from the CJ last year.
the lasco lawyers , some of them already have their own firms?
I note that she did not touch on the contents in her email which triggered the defamation suit but instead chose to harp on whether a government body has the right to sue or not.
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or write anything with absolute no regards to truth and consequences. The fact that she is 21 is immaterial. In fact, 21 yo is considered a matured adult.
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or write anything with absolute no regards to truth and consequences. The fact that she is 21 is immaterial. In fact, 21 yo is considered a matured adult.
Government body threatens to sue this kid..... a daughter of Singapore...
[video=youtube;vTHfa0h0WrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vTHfa0h0WrA[/video]
This kid was threatened to be sued in Court by a government body - the Council for Private Education (CPE), a statutory body under the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The CPE had threatened Ms Han with defamation proceedings by way of letter of demand through their lawyers, Allen and Gledhill, following two emails they received from Ms Han, which they regarded as defamatory.
Her counsel, human rights lawyer M Ravi, is arguing that the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, protects citizens from any defamation proceedings by the government and public bodies. The right to sue for defamation is reserved only for individuals and private entities, and not public bodies.
[video=youtube;vTHfa0h0WrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vTHfa0h0WrA[/video]
This kid was threatened to be sued in Court by a government body - the Council for Private Education (CPE), a statutory body under the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The CPE had threatened Ms Han with defamation proceedings by way of letter of demand through their lawyers, Allen and Gledhill, following two emails they received from Ms Han, which they regarded as defamatory.
Her counsel, human rights lawyer M Ravi, is arguing that the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, protects citizens from any defamation proceedings by the government and public bodies. The right to sue for defamation is reserved only for individuals and private entities, and not public bodies.
Last edited:
Re: Government body threatens to sue this kid..... a daughter of Singapore...
So, we are back to the sue and sue game! We must shame the PAP.
Is the e-mail widely circulated or just to the CPE and cc to relevant people?
So, our tax money is again misused by the government to cow sinkees! When will all these harassment stop?
So, we are back to the sue and sue game! We must shame the PAP.
Is the e-mail widely circulated or just to the CPE and cc to relevant people?
So, our tax money is again misused by the government to cow sinkees! When will all these harassment stop?
She said she contacted more "than 10 law firms out there but they were afraid to take up this case". Was fear the reason? Or was she looking for a lawyer to act for her pro bono?
Unless you have a very good friend or relative who is a lawyer the vast majority are not into giving freebies no matter how noble is a cause.
In M'sia, of course, it is different. There human rights lawyers doing work pro bono are a dime-a-dozen.
From wikipedia.....
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. Some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege. To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.
Another reasn why we should have the jury bac n singapore....no more excuses about how singaporeans are uneducated,...how it is exepensive and cumbersome.....all bullshit in the attempts to get rid of truth and justice...
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. Some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege. To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.
Another reasn why we should have the jury bac n singapore....no more excuses about how singaporeans are uneducated,...how it is exepensive and cumbersome.....all bullshit in the attempts to get rid of truth and justice...
Good observation. She did not touch on the contents in her email because it was clumsily written according to local news blogs. By that it can be inferred that she said nasty things to the CPE. It is no wonder why CPE took offense and send letter of demand.
By her clumsy thinking, she is not of politician quality. She cannot get herself into a good school whether local or foreign education or even polytechnic, ended up in some shitty private education and cannot write and present herself professionally or engage the establishment professionally. Ended up writing clumsy things and getting letter of demand.
There are many cases where the PAP unjustly sue the people. But Han Hui Hui's case is self inflicted. If she learns not to write clumsily, there will be no defamation suit.
Anyway, wish Ravi and her the best and win the case.
Similar threads
