In a defamation suit, we need the plaintiff and the defendant. So, who can be the plaintiff? The plaintiff is the victim. “The statement must have been defamatory to you“.
So, it means the obvious. A bystander cannot sue you for defamation. In short, it is none of the business of the bystander in the eyes of law.
After reading yawning’s bread post on “Is a general election this year now confirmed?“, the curious fingers of mine did a search for the same image.
As usual, Google is our best friend. Google’s cache, updated on 14 Feb 2009 23:41:22 GMT shows the following. It is even before 17 Feb 2009 when the registers of Electors were updated.
So, what is so special about this image? Look at the header. It says “General Elections 2009″.
Quick… for the curious, visit the google cache link to verify for yourself, before the link is updated.
More image here. It is still displaying “General Elections 2009″.
Perhaps it is just me who has a touch of paranoid. The MyPaper article, “They blog, we believe“, which is also reproduced in StraitsTimes, somehow gave me an unease feeling.
1) How often does StraitsTimes reproduce the exact article from MyPaper?
2) The title sounds too simplistic. Reminds me of,
“You say, so I do.”
“You say jump, so I jump.”
“You say run, so I run.”
“You put disclaimer, and mention there is alien in the teacup, so I believe.”
3) Just recently, we had Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew saying that he does “not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of those unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens”.
Note: bloggers is a subset of netizens.
Hmm…. Maybe. Maybe, it is just cost cutting measure to reprint exact articles, and catchy titles to catch reader’s attention.
According to StraitsTimes, ERA has been ordered by High Court to pay $257k and other expenses to a married couple whose property agent had acted in conflict of interest.
The points of contest are
(1) the property “A” was 1st sold for $688,000 ($7818psm), and within 2 weeks was resold for $945,000 (10739psm).
(2) the property “A” was 1st sold to the wife of the boss of the agent.
And the conclusion was that, it is a conflict of interest.
Now, imagine this scenerio*,
(1) the property “A” is sold at $7818psm in July 07, and
(2) the only sales in 07, which was it’s immediate next door neighbor, was sold at $7237psm in May 07, which is just 2 months earlier.
(3) Another sale which is even earlier is $5213psm in Sep 06.
(4) this property “A” is sold to the wife of the boss of the agent.
If this property “A” is not resold again, would the fact that the property is sold at $7818psm to the wife of the boss of the agent be a conflict of interest?
Does the fact that the wife of the boss was able to resell the unit at a higher price means that there is a conflict of interest, since the unit is already sold at a higher psf than a close recent (2 months ago) sale?
Side track: Based on my personal “analysis”, most sales follow the trend of the previous sale. The ability to sell the unit at a higher price, tend to be due to the seller’s willingness to pay a premium over the trend, or is due to the seller’s perceived value of the unit is higher than the trend.
Summary details of sales*
Jul 07 10739psm Property “A” 2nd sale
Jul 07 7818psm Property “A” 1st sale
May 07 7237psm Property “A” immediate neighbor
Sep 06 5213psm Property “A” neighbor on same level
Details of median price for all apartments in Singapore*
2006Q4 7412psm
2007Q1 7790psm
2007Q2 8476psm
2007Q3 9178psm
However, does the ability to resell the unit at the higher price within the short time-frame of within 2 weeks, implied that the higher price buyer already exist in the picture, when the unit was sold to the wife of the boss of the agent?
Perhaps, the conclusion would be just not to place oneself in such a situation.
*The values presented are obtained from Realis database.
According to Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament yesterday, the incident involving MP Seng Han Thong, shows that
(1) “the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be”,
(2) that he does “not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of those unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens”,
(3) “it is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation”, and
(4) he urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct.
Somehow, this article really catches my eye. Is internet a self-regulating REGIME? When is internet a REGIME? According to the dictionary, regime means
1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.
2. a ruling or prevailing system.
3. a government in power.
4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.
Isn’t the idea of internet as a PLATFORM for open access and free expression the norm?
Does his statement that not enough has been done to rebut some of those unhelpful comments, means that most online comments are “unhelpful”. Doesn’t this reflect the viewpoint of netizens? If internet is a REGIME, does it means that it is an “unhelpful” REGIME?
“Self-regulation”. “Acceptable online conduct”. Does it smells like official regulation is on the way?
Minister rues poor conduct
By Zakir Hussain, Political Correspondent
WHEN MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a Yio Chu Kang resident last month, he drew many online attacks that were vicious.
Some were ‘downright outrageous’, said Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament yesterday.
He was referring to postings that included statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should ‘be thankful for’ in spite of being attacked.
But instead of silencing these attackers, the online community largely bit their tongue.
The tepid response of netizens to the nasty comments disappointed Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui, who said it was ‘quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be’.
RADM Lui was replying to Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), who had asked for his views on netizens’ response to the physical attack on Mr Seng, MP for Yio Chu Kang.
He said: ‘I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.
‘It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation.It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.
‘But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.’
RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct.
Article obtained from StraitsTimes on 5 Feb 2009