Is This Libel?

[jw5]

Let's be clear first of all that this is another hypothetical case, ok?
No such incident happened, I'm not trying to set anyone up, and this does not relate to a real person.
Although there could be a few possibilities if you think hard enough.

Let's say that you make these remarks about someone:

"If the ministar had a problem, he would do cartwheels and jumping jacks to solve the particular problem.
But if it was an ordinary singaporean who had the same problem, his secretary would tell you he's not in."

Any comments or opinions, even funny ones?
This is not a legal question or even a real situation, so no legal expertise is required.

 

[kingrant]

"If the ministar had a problem, he would do cartwheels and jumping jacks to solve the particular problem.
But if it was an ordinary singaporean, his secretary would tell you he's not in."

I dunno the genesis of yr poser, but I'll venture to say that if the Minister had a problem, it might be presumptious to think that he would necessarily be doing cartwheels and jumping jacks to solve it. If all our Ministers were as you said they would be, more people will be doing cartwheels and jumping up and down with joy. And what's more, what makes you think that only an ordinary person would have his secretary tell you he's not in - why not a Minister also?

 

[jw5]

I dunno the genesis of yr poser, but I'll venture to say that if the Minister had a problem, it might be presumptious to think that he would necessarily be doing cartwheels and jumping jacks to solve it. If all our Ministers were as you said they would be, more people will be doing cartwheels and jumping up and down with joy. And what's more, what makes you think that only an ordinary person would have his secretary tell you he's not in - why not a Minister also?

Bro Kingrant

I have edited the post hopefully to make it clearer.
What I meant was a hypothetical third person, someone who would do cartwheels to solve the ministar's problem but would tell his secretary to say he's not in, if an ordinary singaporean had the same problem.

Have I confused you even more?

 

[kingrant]

Ah now I see yr drift.

In this land, many people work under fear or for favour. If you are not feared or you are somebody whom no one wants to curry favours from, then indeed your observation is spot on.

Bro Kingrant

I have edited the post hopefully to make it clearer.
What I meant was a hypothetical third person, someone who would do cartwheels to solve the ministar's problem but would tell his secretary to say he's not in, if an ordinary singaporean had the same problem.

Have I confused you even more?

 

[Ramseth]

What has this got to do with libel?

 

[jw5]

What has this got to do with libel?

In the first post, I said "Let's say that you make the following remarks about someone".
That person might take offence to those remarks.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Bro Kingrant

I have edited the post hopefully to make it clearer.
What I meant was a hypothetical third person, someone who would do cartwheels to solve the ministar's problem but would tell his secretary to say he's not in, if an ordinary singaporean had the same problem.

Have I confused you even more?

You don't understand Singapore's libel laws ah ?

Whatever the Bayi says is law.

 

[SneeringTree]

Hello, it is not the content that matters in Sinkapore, it is the context.

(1) If this is spoken by an opposition politician at a rally, then it is 90% libelous.
(2) If the said politician has a high chance of winning the PAPPIES in the election, then it is 99% libelous.
(3) If said politician actually wins the election, then it is 101% libelous.

 

[rodent2005]

In the first post, I said "Let's say that you make the following remarks about someone".
That person might take offence to those remarks.

It's not a libel, it's a scandal.

 

[kingrant]

I think it is a fair comment. You are just commenting on an environment for political debate. No name was mentioned.

 

[shOUTloud]

I think it is a fair comment. You are just commenting on an environment for political debate. No name was mentioned.

But what if he is referring to someone?

 

[kingrant]

Terms like 'running dogs' and 'stooges' and 'attack dogs' are frequently used in political parlance. No one has been sued for using them. These terms have the same meaning as 'balls carriers' etc.

But what if he is referring to someone?

 

[Ramseth]

It's of course not libel. Lee Kuan Yew said it himself, it's natural that if he ordered a plate of char kway teow, the hawker automatically gave him more hum without needing asking or extra charge. He even added, he expected it would be the same Chiam See Tong if he Chiam ordered food in Potong Pasir. It's the natural way of the world. People put in more effort when servicing people in positions of power. Not only in Potong Pasir or Singapore, but the whole wide world of human societies.

Is it unfair to people not in positions of power? No, as long as they're not shortchanged or cheated, i.e. they pay $3, get $3 worth of goods or services. That the people in positions of power get extra without paying extra, that's voluntary courtesy, like give face, not even bribery, as long as there's no condition attached.

 

[kingrant]

Is there a typo, bro? You left out a 'not'? If LKY says it is natural, then he won't press libel charges then.

It's of course of libel. Lee Kuan Yew said it himself, it's natural

 

[jw5]

It's of course of libel. Lee Kuan Yew said it himself, it's natural that if he ordered a plate of char kway teow, the hawker automatically gave him more hum without needing asking or extra charge. He even added, he expected it would be the same Chiam See Tong if he Chiam ordered food in Potong Pasir. It's the natural way of the world. People put in more effort when servicing people in positions of power. Not only in Potong Pasir or Singapore, but the whole wide world of human societies.

Is it unfair to people not in positions of power? No, as long as they're not shortchanged or cheated, i.e. they pay $3, get $3 worth of goods or services. That the people in positions of power get extra without paying extra, that's voluntary courtesy, like give face, not even bribery, as long as there's no condition attached.

Of course people will give "extras" to the people in power.
That's natural and probably even acceptable human behaviour.
So if the case had been one whereby 2 people needed help and he solved the powerful person's problem first, that would be fine.
But don't forget that in the cited hypothetical case, he "did cartwheels" for the powerful person and ignored the ordinary person's problem.
That, in my opinion, is unacceptable, if proven to be true.

But the question here is, "Is it libel?"

 

[Ramseth]

Is there a typo, bro? You left out a 'not'? If LKY says it is natural, then he won't press libel charges then.

Typo, yes. Corrected. Apologies and thanks for pointing out.

 

[Ramseth]

But the question here is, "Is it libel?"

If LKY said it's natural, how could it be libel? If you're still questioning him, then you're in danger of libeling him.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Typo, yes. Corrected. Apologies and thanks for pointing out.

Snap it out ! Stop thinking of Foyce.

 

[jw5]

If LKY said it's natural, how could it be libel? If you're still questioning him, then you're in danger of libeling him.

Hahaha, that's why I'm asking in the form of a question.
No seriously, the case cited in the first post is different from your example.

 

[kingrant]

Libel or not aside, I think if a civil servant were to discriminate against the ordinary member of the public in its service in favour of an MP or Minister, the member of the public has a right to demand the same priority.

Suppose we have a hypothetical case where A, an ordinary peasant, has a private dispute, say, with his neighbour, a Minister, I am pretty sure A will be ever watchful over how the govt depts handle his affairs versus the Minister in question. If A legitimately accuses the govt dept official(s) of pandering to the whims of the powerful, he has every reason to feel aggrieved and if he can't take them to court, he can very well make a federal case out of it in the press.

It's of course not libel. Lee Kuan Yew said it himself, it's natural that if he ordered a plate of char kway teow, the hawker automatically gave him more hum without needing asking or extra charge. He even added, he expected it would be the same Chiam See Tong if he Chiam ordered food in Potong Pasir. It's the natural way of the world. People put in more effort when servicing people in positions of power. Not only in Potong Pasir or Singapore, but the whole wide world of human societies.

Is it unfair to people not in positions of power? No, as long as they're not shortchanged or cheated, i.e. they pay $3, get $3 worth of goods or services. That the people in positions of power get extra without paying extra, that's voluntary courtesy, like give face, not even bribery, as long as there's no condition attached.