Reading the article by Ngerng, it does appear that he has legitimate grounds for saying so as the numbers simply do not match. But regardless of whether Ngerng was right or wrong, the Prime Minister action is clearly unlawful and an abuse of the law. Defamation law of today does not entitle a Prime Minister of a country to sue a private citizen merely because he accused him of misuse of funds. This is the law of all modern nations of today. Such actions are done only by tyrants and dictators of banana republics and third world sub Saharan Africa. The actions of the Singapore Prime Minister disgrace Singapore and is a stain on its reputation. This is why. The law of defamation does allow a citizen to sue another for unjustly defaming his character. Therefore citizen A can sue citizen B if accused of dishonesty. But different sets of rules apply to a public figure. The Prime Minister is a public figure. In the case of public figures, it is not enough that one has defamed another. In order for a public figure to succeed against a private citizen, in addition to proving the falsity of the charge, it has to be shown that the defendant had malice aforethought, in other words a personal desire to harm, the plaintiff. The higher bar placed on public figures as opposed to ordinary citizens is because the right to free speech is paramount and the courts should not muzzle public debate on matters of public interest and controversy. In addition, the Plaintiff has to show actual damage as a result of the Defendants statement; not enough to merely allege perceived damage. As a result, a public figure is faced with a very high threshold to overcome when suing a private citizen. And rightly so. This rule was set in stone in the landmark case of New York Times vs Sullivan, a Supreme court case.
Posted on: Tue, 27 May 2014 23:49:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015