http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2563
Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits?
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 16, 2009
SINGAPORE - The most ubiquitous case in which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that A*STAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its scholarship holders into their PhD programs. A*STAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After A*STAR resorted to legal action, Mr Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was only two years after the incident[COLOR=_______] that A*STAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its website.[/COLOR]
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between A*STAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from the public. Some felt that A*STAR was justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against it. Thus, the pertinent question is - is it worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the speculations will continue unabated in the face of such non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking A*STAR as an example, it is known that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on A*STAR’s investments on scholarships and nurturing research talents is not publicly available. Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that A*STAR could have paid a certain amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse? It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization, there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the organization for taking extreme measures against powerless individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices. Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
---------------------------------
Latest updates at Singapore News Alternatives:
1. Singapore Warns Against Staging Protests During APEC Summit
2. Singapore's government-backed loans reach record high in March
3. Singapore steps in to foster media sector
4. Singapore men put love on hold on financial worry
5. Vietnam Wants More Investment From Singapore
6. Capitaland May Increase Its 59% Stake On Australand
7. Qantas Cut Staff, SIA May Follow Suit As Air Travel Business Worsens
New videos added:
1. Bartaring growing in Singapore
2. Peter Schiff Vlog - 14 Apr 200
.
Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits?
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 16, 2009
SINGAPORE - The most ubiquitous case in which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that A*STAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its scholarship holders into their PhD programs. A*STAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After A*STAR resorted to legal action, Mr Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was only two years after the incident[COLOR=_______] that A*STAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its website.[/COLOR]
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between A*STAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from the public. Some felt that A*STAR was justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against it. Thus, the pertinent question is - is it worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the speculations will continue unabated in the face of such non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking A*STAR as an example, it is known that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on A*STAR’s investments on scholarships and nurturing research talents is not publicly available. Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that A*STAR could have paid a certain amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse? It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization, there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the organization for taking extreme measures against powerless individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices. Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
---------------------------------
Latest updates at Singapore News Alternatives:
1. Singapore Warns Against Staging Protests During APEC Summit
2. Singapore's government-backed loans reach record high in March
3. Singapore steps in to foster media sector
4. Singapore men put love on hold on financial worry
5. Vietnam Wants More Investment From Singapore
6. Capitaland May Increase Its 59% Stake On Australand
7. Qantas Cut Staff, SIA May Follow Suit As Air Travel Business Worsens
New videos added:
1. Bartaring growing in Singapore
2. Peter Schiff Vlog - 14 Apr 200
.
