Singapore's Most Expensive Facebook Link (restofworld.org) 16
An anonymous reader shares a report: On November 7, 2018, Leong Sze Hian, a financial advisor and blogger, shared an article on his Facebook page, without comment. The article, published by Malaysian website The Coverage, alleged that Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had become a target of ongoing investigations in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, a massive case of graft in Malaysia that drew in banks in Singapore, Hollywood stars, and Saudi royalty. The article claimed that Malaysia, under former Prime Minister Najib Razak, had signed unfair deals with Singapore in return for help to launder stolen funds. These were serious allegations, particularly in Singapore, where the government is ultra-sensitive to any suggestion of corruption.
The response, unsurprisingly, was strong and swift: the law and home affairs minister issued a clear rebuttal, Singapore's High Commission in Kuala Lumpur described the article as libelous, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore lodged a police report against the author of a similar article published in the States Times Review, a website run by a Singaporean in Australia who is highly critical of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party. The Infocomm Media Development Authority, Singapore's media regulator, told Leong to remove the link from his Facebook page; he did. But it was already too late to save him from trouble. Two days later, he found out that Prime Minister Lee was going to sue him for defamation. Last month, the High Court ruled that Leong did defame Lee and ordered him to pay almost $100,000 (133,000 Singapore dollars) in damages. It's an extraordinary sum for a simple Facebook link that stayed up for only three days. But there's a particular legal precedent in Singapore: public leaders are usually awarded higher damages when they win defamation suits related to their character or integrity. In his judgment, Justice Aedit Abdullah quoted a previous case in which the courts stated that public "leaders are generally entitled to higher damages also because of their standing in Singapore society and devotion to public service."
The response, unsurprisingly, was strong and swift: the law and home affairs minister issued a clear rebuttal, Singapore's High Commission in Kuala Lumpur described the article as libelous, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore lodged a police report against the author of a similar article published in the States Times Review, a website run by a Singaporean in Australia who is highly critical of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party. The Infocomm Media Development Authority, Singapore's media regulator, told Leong to remove the link from his Facebook page; he did. But it was already too late to save him from trouble. Two days later, he found out that Prime Minister Lee was going to sue him for defamation. Last month, the High Court ruled that Leong did defame Lee and ordered him to pay almost $100,000 (133,000 Singapore dollars) in damages. It's an extraordinary sum for a simple Facebook link that stayed up for only three days. But there's a particular legal precedent in Singapore: public leaders are usually awarded higher damages when they win defamation suits related to their character or integrity. In his judgment, Justice Aedit Abdullah quoted a previous case in which the courts stated that public "leaders are generally entitled to higher damages also because of their standing in Singapore society and devotion to public service."
Another good reason (Score:3)
to stay off of Facebook
Re: Another good reason (Score:1)
Sharia rules? In Singapore? Do you know anything at all about Singapore?
Re: (Score:1)
Exchange rate. (Score:2)
In his judgment, Justice Aedit Abdullah quoted a previous case in which the courts stated that public "leaders are generally entitled to higher damages also because of their standing in Singapore society and devotion to public service."
Wow. Sure you don't want to swap leaders with us?
Good thing he wasn’t chewing gum! (Score:2)
I love many things about Singapore; it appeals to an engineer’s desire for order. At the same time, that order has a high price. I wonder if the original source website was generally considered credible and what the gentleman generally blogs about.
And in completely unrelated stuff... wow, the exchange rate is only 1.33 now! Guess you need a loan for a beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Singapore is full of inherent conflict that deters me. Its clean image is just an image, the reality is far more complex and frequently falls short.
The order is achieved (to the extent that it is) through totalitarian imposition of conformity, and the engineer in me rejects that coercive control. Things should be elegant and work because they're right, not because they're being dictated.
It's also the only place I've had to throw out a pair of socks because they got too dirty to even try and wash.
Re: (Score:2)
as you may recall this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The PAP is really like the CCP. The only real difference is Singapore is democratic (though it falls under the "failed democracy" rating of "authortarian") and generally soft-spoken. They are middlemen who know that they are middlemen and don't quite stir the pot and thus attract the ire of the world. The
Re: (Score:2)
"...highly critical of...People's Action Party." (Score:4, Funny)
So it's a Pap smear?
the real reason (Score:2)
The real reason the penalties for criticizing government officials is excessive isn't to protect the integrity of the government. It's to make you afraid to criticize corrupt government officials.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:2)
So a Facebook post can be the basis for a defamation claim? Is that particularly surprising to anyone?
Zuckerberg should pay it (Score:2)
For his and Facebook's PR, Zuck could get a lot of mileage by paying this fine to show they are all about free speech and the articles they allow to be posted are honest and accurate.