include("cmp.php");

Responding to Sze Hian’s call for help in raising funds is not giving money to Mr Lee

Click to enlarge

Sze Hian was sued by Lee Hsien Loong for defamation. Last week the courts awarded Mr Lee $133,000, including $30,000 as “aggravated damages”.

Sze Hian’s fault? For merely sharing an article.

He had not even posted any accompanying comments of his own.

Just shared the article.

And when he was ordered by the iMDA to remove the post, he did so.

By then, his post “had received 22 reactions, 5 comments and 18 shares.”

I first knew Sze Hian when I started The Online Citizen (TOC) in 2006. He was among the very first group of volunteers we had, and I worked very closely with him on the articles he wrote for TOC.

I had invited Sze Hian to write for us at TOC because I observed his (then) many letters published in the mainstream media’s forum pages.

And they were good letters, raising pertinent issues which many of us were unaware of.

The lawsuit against him, in my opinion, was unfortunate and unnecessary, for the following reasons:

1. He had removed the post when asked to.
2. His post had a very limited reach – it “had received 22 reactions, 5 comments and 18 shares.” Not by any stretch of the imagination would that have caused much, if any, damage to anyone’s reputation. Or should constitute an act of defamation, especially when he wasn’t even the person who wrote the article.
3. The person who actually wrote the article was not sued for defamation. Neither was the publisher.
4. Mr Lee had ample resources to rebut such an article.

I feel the judge failed to take into consideration that the supposed “defamation” was also transient.

The award of $133,000 damages to Mr Lee by the courts, in my opinion, is exaggerated and unwarranted.

Be that as they may, Sze Hian is obliged by the court’s verdict to pay $133,000 to Mr Lee.

Some people have said that to donate to Sze Hian would be simply giving money to Mr Lee, which they would hesitate to do.

But, to me, this case boils down to a simple issue:

Is it fair to sue Sze Hian when he had already removed the article (albeit after 3 days) once he was told by the authorities to do so?

Could Mr Lee have issued a statement rebutting the article which, as past instances have shown, would be carried widely by the mainstream media, and online sites, here?

Would Mr Lee’s reputation have sustained or suffered any damage then?

It is hard to think he would, given Mr Lee’s formidable reputation not only in Singapore but internationally, a reputation built over 37 years in government. (Incidentally, Mr Lee was among the only 40 world leaders invited by US President Joe Biden to a summit. That speaks volume of Mr Lee’s standing in the world.)

Responding to Sze Hian’s call for help in raising funds is not giving money to Mr Lee.

It is, instead and in fact, a visible show of solidarity, and a sign that we Singaporeans care about fairness, and proportionality, and that we believe the government – with its vast resources and reach – must act with restraint.

So, it really is about whether we believe in these things.

And if you do, then you must stand up and be counted.

And you must and should believe in these things I mentioned above, because if you don’t, one day you may find that you have absolutely no power to speak at all if you are in an unfortunate situation.

The time to prevent this and protect your power as citizens is now – by showing that you do hold such things as important to you and to your fellow Singaporeans.

So, I urge you to lend Sze Hian a hand, and in the process make a statement that being able to share articles (or content) online is a necessary, important and integral part of being a citizen with free and independent thought.

You can find details of how to contribute in the picture attached.

Thank you.

 

Andrew Loh

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

28 Responses to “Responding to Sze Hian’s call for help in raising funds is not giving money to Mr Lee”

  • Mr Leong appears to be the 1st person on planet Earth to be sued in court and lost for sharing or reposting an article that has already been circulating on Facebook for quite some time.

    What next? Sued for posting Instagram? Twitter? Tiktok? YouTube?

    * speechless *

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Try this to get OB markers:

    TRE Techie:
    Mr Leong appears to be the 1st person on planet Earth to be sued in court and lost for sharing or reposting an article that has already been circulating on Facebook for quite some time.

    What next? Sued for posting Instagram? Twitter? Tiktok? YouTube?

    * speechless *

    Wear a t-shirt with a slogan: Fuck PAP See what happens. Will you be arrested for defamation and/or “illegal public assembly”?

    Remember the person who stood outside the Parliament Building holding a mirror (yes, a mirror). He was arrested for illegal assembly. Only in Singapore an “assembly” can be just one person. (BTW, the dictionary defines “assembly” as a GROUP of people gathered together in one place). Singapore is indeed just an (expensive) North Korea.

    In Singapore it is “Rule BY Law” instead of “Rule OF Law”.

    LHL can win in court but if Leong Sze Hian manages to raise most of the amounts needed to pay the $133k damages it is really LHL (and the Singapore judicial system) that lost. Didn’t somebody say the latter is “pliant“? Is he right? What do you think? The people who contributed to help Leong Sze Hian certainly thinks so. Even after 5+ decades of PAP “terrorism” of Singaporeans, they still know injustice if they see it. This case proves it.

    Each time LHL (and PAP) win defamation case in court they lose more support from Singaporeans. Another 10+% shift in votes in the next GE will like show that the majority of Singaporeans no longer supporting the arrogant, ruthless, pro-alien and always self-serving PAP. Regime change is in the cards.

    Tech: Seriously? Kenna charged for holding a mirror? Absolutely speechless! I wasn’t remotely aware of that. BTW, your use of the word “pliant” to describe that agency is sibei very dangerous one, so I blanko out for you liao. As for the T with the F word, I remember seeing a photo of a middle-aged person wearing it, it was red in color. Wonder if he was arrested or not.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Yale-NUS panel talking cock:

    Economic growth and investment in education critical to reducing inequality: Yale-NUS panel

    What is most needed to reduce inequality in Singapore is a pro-Singaporean government policy. The massive influx of “cheap” (no CPF) foreigners depressed local wages and sharply increased prices. Many Singaporeans also lost their jobs to foreigners. The net result is increasing inequality in Singapore.

    Economic growth and investment in education will not be enough if the LHL (and PAP) continues with their pro-alien policy that result in a massive influx of foreigners.

    The PAP-run government should also stop using (wasting) taxpayers’ money on foreigners studying in Singapore.

    In Singapore it should be SINGAPOREANS FIRST. ALWAYS

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dishonorable s/o Terrible:

    Suing has become a business of silencing the bleats.
    Should name it Dishonorable s/o Terrible. The brand it carries is truly DisGraceFul.

    By God’s Grace, this should come to an amicable end. Else, it’s deemed an International Disgrace.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Celebrating:

    We will be celebrating the day he got Covid 19. God have eyes.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • How about ?:

    @ Wear a t-shirt with a slogan: Fuck PAP See what happens. Will you be arrested for defamation and/or “illegal public assembly”?

    Same thing , wear a t shirt with a slogan F*** Xi JP in China , see what happen.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Pinky is useless anyway:

    I hope karma will catch up Pinky and his gang. Honestly, we have no control over what they can do to citizens.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Thank you TRE Tech:

    Try this to get OB markers: Wear a t-shirt with a slogan: Fuck PAP See what happens. Will you be arrested for defamation and/or “illegal public assembly”?

    Remember the person who stood outside the Parliament Building holding a mirror (yes, a mirror). He was arrested for illegal assembly. Only in Singapore an “assembly” can be just one person. (BTW, the dictionary defines “assembly” as a GROUP of people gathered together in one place). Singapore is indeed just an (expensive) North Korea.

    In Singapore it is “Rule BY Law” instead of “Rule OF Law”.

    LHL can win in court but if Leong Sze Hian manages to raise most of the amounts needed to pay the $133k damages it is really LHL (and the Singapore judicial system) that lost. Didn’t somebody say the latter is “pliant“? Is he right? What do you think? The people who contributed to help Leong Sze Hian certainly thinks so. Even after 5+ decades of PAP “terrorism” of Singaporeans, they still know injustice if they see it. This case proves it.

    Each time LHL (and PAP) win defamation case in court they lose more support from Singaporeans. Another 10+% shift in votes in the next GE will like show that the majority of Singaporeans no longer supporting the arrogant, ruthless, pro-alien and always self-serving PAP. Regime change is in the cards.

    Tech: Seriously? Kenna charged for holding a mirror? Absolutely speechless! I wasn’t remotely aware of that. BTW, your use of the word “pliant” to describe that agency is sibei very dangerous one, so I blanko out for you liao. As for the T with the F word, I remember seeing a photo of a middle-aged person wearing it, it was red in color. Wonder if he was arrested or not.

    I believe the person arrested in front of Parliament was likely holding a mirror to send a message to PAP MPs to “ask themselves are they really serving the country or are they just PAP’s useful idiots in Parliament?

    Note that I asked a question about somebody using the word you crossed out. Should this be considered defamatory if it actually happened – a fact. Are facts (truth) defamatory?

    If the PAP MP (who was investigated by police for illegal assembly for holding a smiley placard in front of a hawker stall with the words “support them”) had the placard wording printed on his T-shirt will he be investigated for “illegal assembly”?

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • SEND FOREIGNERS HOME:

    Straits times: 130,000 locals hired by 27,000 firms in first 3 months of Jobs Growth Incentive scheme

    The government WASTED BILLIONS on the Job Incentive Scheme. A better – much cheaper and more effective scheme to get jobs for Singaporeans is to cancel the work visa of foreigners in Singapore. This would force them to go back where they came from and Singaporeans can takeover their jobs. Cancelling the work visa of foreigners cost nothing. It can be done by civil servants already employed by the government.

    In Singapore, SINGAPOREANS FIRST. ALWAYS.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Stated above :Quote -”So, I urge you to lend Sze Hian a hand, and in the process make a statement that being able to share articles (or content) online is a necessary, important and integral part of being a citizen with free and independent thought.

    You can find details of how to contribute in the picture attached.

    Thank you.

    Andrew Loh”Unquote.

    Response :Maybe Andrew Loh can answer out how rich is Leong Sze Hian in the first place.From public news before,we understand Leong Sze Hian own a private landed property probably freehold .And did he not have enough cash ? I think his wealth need to reveal before collecting more funds ,for nobody knows he owns millions or not in his bank account ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Why need two years?:

    Straits Times: NUS Law’s dean-designate relinquishes position 2 weeks after appointment, citing ‘personal reasons’

    Ok BUT why is it necessary to extend the appointment of the current dean a foreigner and son-in-law of ex-35% President Tony Tan for a full term? There is still time to look for a replacement. At most, extend the current dean’s appointment until a suitable replacement is found. It should not be extended for another term until 2023. Also, Singapore is not short of good LOCAL (Singaporean) lawyers who are qualified to be dean of the NUS Law School.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    The $ueing CONtinue$…
    Nothing else better to do.
    DavinDUH $ing is waiting to go to hell for helping to protect n promote EVIL$?

    KARMA NEVER FAILS,just wait n see,DavinDUH!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • HDB flat depreciate to ZERO:

    Straits Times: Singapore’s million-dollar HDB flats: Where are the 6 most expensive units ever sold located?

    “In spite of the Covid-19 pandemic, a total of 82 Housing Board flats were sold for at least $1 million last year, compared with 64 in 2019.”

    The INSANITY in the HDB resale market continues. HDB flats are BASICALLY DEPRECIATING asset because of the 99-year. This is common sense and basic economics. Not even “Lee Con You” can change this FACT.

    In fact, HDB’s Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) proves that HDB flats depreciate to ZERO despite HIP 1 and HIP 2. HDB “owners” (actually long-term renters) can actually use the LBS Scheme to determine the “fair value” of their flat. They should offer to sell HALF THE REMAINING LEASE of their flat back to HDB. The “fair (real) value” of their flat is just TWICE what HDB offers to buy half the remaining lease. It is that simple.

    People paying a million for resale flats are assuming the insanity can go on indefinitely. It cannot because at some point more and more people will realize that 35+ years old HDB flat (only 2/3 of useful life left) cannot possibly be worth the SAME as a new flat with a full 99-year lease. When this fact sinks it there will be a STAMPEDE to sell HDB flat causing the price to collapse – more sellers than buyers therefore the price goes down. Again, basic economics that PAP (and Lee Con You) cannot change.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Hahahaha….

    Leong will never reach his targeted amount of $133,000.

    My master PM Lee do not call Singaporeans R Free Riders for nothing.

    Andrew cannot even raise 10,000 for his medical fees.

    This is the price of helping Free Riders…. they are out to squeeze the last drop of benefits out of you without repaying your kindness.

    It is like you owe it to them and you must die for them for free.

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.HuatAgain
    Majullah $PAP$ $PAP$ Huat$

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Rape or no rape crime:

    Recently, news say a group of men was in a room with a drunken woman. One man was charged with rape, and convicted. Another man who filmed the rape was not charge with rape.

    Has the law been wrongly applied?

    If a group of men rob a bank, the driver waiting outside the bank will be charged with the same crimes as the guys who fired inside the bank.

    So, why the difference? In this case, the one who filmed is also the one to ask the other guy to rape.

    The gov need to explain the difference.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Rape or no rape crime

    At face value, I would agree that at least he should be charged with accessory to rape and an accomplise.

    BUT in any criminal case, INTENTION is very important and let me TRY to cite an example that may explain why he was not charged for rape.

    I want to rape Cindy, so I called you to come with me and (only) film me raping her. During thr rape process, you merely held the camera and did not help to restrain her or take off her clothes.

    From the onset, it was INTENDED that you ONLY had to film the process, nothing else. So you cannot be said to have INTENDED to participate in the raping of Cindy nor did you perform any acts to facilitate the rape, hence no common INTENTION.

    Your gang robbery example is different in circumstances because the driver’s intention is to KNOWINGLY drive the robbers to commit robbery, and if the heist is successful to share the loot, so common INTENTION.

    Me no lawyer and I welcome any lawyers to correct me if I am wrong.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lawless Lawyer:

    Let me rephrase the words:

    Your gang robbery example is different in circumstances because the video-grapher’s intention is to KNOWINGLY ‘videoed’ the ‘rapist’ to commit ‘rape’, and if the ‘rape’ is successful to share the ‘video’, so common INTENTION.
    hahaha

    TRE Techie: Your gang robbery example is different in circumstances because the driver’s intention is to KNOWINGLY drive the robbers to commit robbery, and if the heist is successful to share the loot, so common INTENTION.

    Tech: I respectfully disagree, the end result and goal is different. The driver’s intention is to accomplish bank robbery together as a gang but the video-grapher’s intention is to merely film the process of rape, not partake in the rape itself. He may be charged for some other offense, maybe even for sharing the video under the obscene material act, but rape is inappropriate.

    However, if the video-grapher was instrumental in abducting the victim to the scene to be raped, then maybe he could be charged with being an accessory to rape, but even so, I think abduction would be more appropriate a charge as the video-grapher did not partake in the rape and it is very hard to prove “knowledge”, more so “intention”.

    Again, I stand corrected.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lawless Lawyer:

    Both cases same, considered as accomplice. Unless proven the ‘loot’ is being shared & possessed.

    Tech: In the rape case, the victim is the “loot” and she was not “shared”, no? The fact that the video-grapher did not rape the victim is a strong defense against any rape charges unless common intention can be proven. Much stronger defense if the video-grapher is paid to film the rape.

    P/S: I think you meant to say “Unless proven the ‘loot’ is NOT being shared & possessed.”?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lawless Lawyer:

    In the rape case, the “loot” is the video lah. Not the victim.

    Lawless Lawyer:
    Both cases same, considered as accomplice. Unless proven the ‘loot’ is being shared & possessed.

    Tech: In the rape case, the victim is the “loot” and she was not “shared”, no? The fact that the video-grapher did not rape the victim is a strong defense against any rape charges unless common intention can be proven. Much stronger defense if the video-grapher is paid to film the rape.

    Tech: Ah ok, without privy to the details, we are only here playing “what if”. Maybe the video was meant for the rapist’s personal consumption and only the rapist had possession?

    The question here is WHY the video-grapher is NOT being charged as an accomplice, so I am merely trying to render a possible “why not”.
    .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lawless Lawyer:

    Heard of ‘tiger show’? What happen if you are told it is a ‘tiger show’ and you go and watch but don’t video? Getting complicated now.

    Lawless Lawyer:
    In the rape case, the “loot” is the video lah. Not the victim.

    Tech: Ah ok, without privy to the details, we are only here playing “what if”. Maybe the video was meant for the rapist’s personal consumption and only the rapist had possession?

    The question here is WHY the video-grapher is NOT being charged as an accomplice, so I am merely trying to render a possible “why not”.
    .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lawless Lawyer:

    With due respect. Shouldn’t be discussing this, in this thread. Didn’t look at the header. Sorry.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Lawless Lawyer

    Ah, I get your drift liao. Law sibei complicated one, which is why I no study. lol

    He say she say, at the end all say this say that. Such cases leave to the learned Judge better. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Little Guy says.....:

    “All right, then, I’ll go to hell….. but you’re taking the cell beside me!”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Zhenzidan:

    Singaporeans R Free Riders:
    Hahahaha….

    Leong will never reach his targeted amount of $133,000.

    My master PM Lee do not call Singaporeans R Free Riders for nothing.

    Andrew cannot even raise 10,000 for his medical fees.

    This is the price of helping Free Riders…. they are out to squeeze the last drop of benefits out of you without repaying your kindness.

    It is like you owe it to them and you must die for them for free.

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.HuatAgain
    Majullah $PAP$ $PAP$ Huat$

    Haha….$100k already! Dare to bet with me? If Leong achieved his target, you pay for Andrew’s medical expenses! Dare to accept my challenge?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • guru:

    LHL thought the Sze Hian w8ll go the way JBJ & Roy Ng went. This is a good lesson for LHL & PAP to know that the people of Singapore will stand for justice & justice delayed is justice denied.
    KEEP UP SINGAPORE!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Wah hahahaha….

    Leong will reach his targeted amount of $133,000.

    My girly PM Lee is also not a Free Rider for nothing.

    Andrew can also raise 10,000 for his medical fees
    if he wants to.

    This is the beauty of helping Free Riders…. they are out to squeeze the last drop of benefits out of me without repaying my kindness.

    It is like I owe it to them and I must die for them for free sucking his balls.

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Lose.LanLan.Again
    Mati-llah $PAP$ $PAP$ Porkh.Ahh$

    Tech: Neh, don’t any how say, I managed to raise S$2000+ nia, my face no so big like Leong and/or Terry.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Zhenzidan:

    Singaporeans R Free Riders:
    Wah hahahaha….

    Leong will reach his targeted amount of $133,000.

    My girly PM Lee is also not a Free Rider for nothing.

    Andrew can also raise 10,000 for his medical fees
    if he wants to.

    This is the beauty of helping Free Riders…. they are out to squeeze the last drop of benefits out of me without repaying my kindness.

    It is like I owe it to them and I must die for them for free sucking his balls.

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Lose.LanLan.Again
    Mati-llah $PAP$ $PAP$ Porkh.Ahh$

    Tech: Neh, don’t any how say, I managed to raise S$2000+ nia, my face no so big like Leong and/or Terry.

    Hahaha.. one moment say Leong will never hit his target and now changed tack after he reaches$100k. A real typical ass-licker. Even if you want to lick my ass, I will tell you to fiack off because your tongue too dirty!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • #06-183 huang ba dan:

    Want to donate just do. Don’t have to go into along spiel to justify.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1