I'd think twice before jumping to hasty conclusions. I don't know teh background of this case, but did this lawyer guy have any past history of using his blog for inflammatory comments and/or making controversial public statements? If not, maybe he had provocation for saying something so obviously wrong?
Lee Swee Say
· 1 year ago
You are in no position to comment on this. Gopalan's ire was raised on what he observed at the trial of Lee Kuan Yew vs Chee Soon Juan. Every question Chee asked was objected to by the counsel for Lee. And the judge sustained all objections. And they call that a free trail!
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
It doesn't matter *why* he called the judge a prostitute and dared her to arrest him. You do that in any civilized country, you'll get held in contempt of court.
Ian McDonald
· 1 year ago
He didn't call the judge a prostitute.*
He didn't dare her to arrest him.*
Even if you were to do that in a civilised country, the judge would only be able to sue for defamation as a private citizen. Because in a civilised country, all are equal before the law.
(*At least, not in the blogspot posts I've read, and those seem to be the ones the AP story is about.)
R
· 1 year ago
If he did that IN COURT in any civilized country, then he would get held in contempt of court.
However, he used the "prostitution" term as a figure of speech and did not mean it literally. Also, he did not dare the judge to arrest him. He dared Lee Kuan Yew, the politician involved in the court case, to bring a defamation suit against him. Please read the blog carefully.
Lee Swee Say
· 1 year ago
And this is why I gave you an flase email address. I don't want to land in the slammer
Sir Michael L. Foley
· 1 year ago
Sorry, but I don't buy it. There is a freedom of speech, but not a right to avoid speech you don't want to hear or don't like. He broke the law, yes, but that assumes that the law is just to begin with. I do not believe that it is and I am tired of this cult surrounding political figures wherein we cannot blaspheme these new "gods," like the Christians who refused to bow down to Caesar. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
They did violate his free speech rights. The fact that they refuse to accept it, and that people will defend them in that, shows just how fragile those rights are when they oppose those in power and why we must push to keep them unfettered all the more.
Mickey Blue Eyes
· 1 year ago
Whatever happen to Michael Fey? Did he survive his six strokes of the cane?
Did he continue to run wild through the streets of Singapore vandalizing property? Are you booking a flight to Singapore to run wild and vandalize property? If the answer to both questions is "no", I'd say that the punishment served it's purpose.
You did forget to mention in one paragraph that if you say something on Mashable that is just plain stupid (as opposed to civilly or criminally actionable), you are subject to the readership calling you an idiot. :-)
But you are right in one regard. People are filled with their own sense of "rights" but choose to not acknowledge that with those rights come "responsibilities" and "consequences". People get offended and upset when someone responds negatively to something they say. As if they have the right to say whatever they want but nobody has the right to respond except in the affirmative.
If you do something that you know is illegal and you get into trouble for it, don't whine and moan and beg for help from your fellow travelers. Take your punishment like a man and accept responsibility for your actions.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Mickey, I woulda mentioned the fact that readers might call me an idiot, but I figured that anyone could just take a look at one of my editorials to find an example of that... :-p
What you're saying is particularly true for this case. I'm not sure from the circumstances if this guy is trying to be the Singaporan Rosa Parks or if he's just spinning it that way after the fact. Either way, you have to know there will be severe consequences for your actions in a country like Singapore.
Phil - 20 Years In Singapore
· 1 year ago
In response to "Whatever happen to Michael Fey?" a little research will demonstrate that he went from being a thug in Singapore, (trying to organise gangs of youths into vandalising cars and property to beating up his own Father and committing "misdemeanors" when he was returned to his home country.
The thing is that "misdemeanors" has a different view point in Singapore and organising gangs to destroy property and intimidate people is not so readily accepted as it is by the US and European judiciary.
Ryan O.
· 1 year ago
So let me get this straight, you are arguing that because Nair broke a law in Singapore, he should accept his punishment and there should be no outrage within or outside Singapore because that is the law of the land? Reading his blog, clearly Nair meant "prostituting herself" in a metaphorical sense. He was not making any false claim that she was an actual sex for money prostitute. Sure, the language is strong, but I can't imagine any more straightforward example of political speech that should be protected: the calling out of an official of the government for corruption.
Surely he was being provocative, and perhaps even hoped to be arrested to attract exactly the sort of attention he is now receiving. But don't tell me that we should have no sympathy for him because he knowingly broke the law of the land. I respect those that have the courage to challenge unjust laws. When you give government officials the ability to arrest citizens for political speech, even if the arrest is nominally for "defamation" rather than expressly for the political content of the speech, you have opened the door to vast abuses of power.
Where are you going to stop with your line of reasoning? Should we all just quiet down about Aung San Suu Kyi as well? She knew the consequences of her activism, and she certainly was breaking the law of the Junta in Burma when she was arrested. How about the student that stood down the tanks in Tienanmen Square? Didn't do anything for you either?
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Ryan,
Provacative would be posting it on his blog.
Harassing would be sending it to her email.
Asking for trouble would be doing both and then taunting the judge asking for a punishment.
Ian McDonald
· 1 year ago
Gopalan Nair did post it on his blog.
Harassment is a pattern of behaviour, not a political critique which uses a crudely sexual metaphor. I think the word confuses rather than clarifies here.
I've read nothing to suggest he taunted the judge. Lee Kuan Yew, yes. Belinda Ang Saw Ean, no.
Dave
· 1 year ago
I think former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura put it well...
Free speech is freedom from government intervention, not freedom from responsibility. Heck, you can burn an American flag if it's your property, but don't be surprised if someone yells at you or tries to beat your ass.
R
· 1 year ago
One thing must be understood about politics in Singapore : It is a one-party state.
The leaders have a history of using defamation lawsuits to silence political opponents. There is also an archaic law (a legacy from colonial times) that aloows them to detain a person deemed to be a security threat, without trial. This has been used in the past against political opponents as well. There has been questions and criticisms about the independence of the judiciary too.
In a true first-world democracy, which Singapore's leader claim the country to be, criticism of the government and the judiciary is fair game.
Now, it would be fair to castigate Mr. Nair if the law that he had broken was just and representative of what you would find in a developed and civilized society. It is extremely vague how he broke the law as there is no clear definition of what constitutes an insult. Would calling the judge "stupid", "blind", or a "lap dog" constitute an offence? If it does, then I and many Singaporeans have broken the law.
One can easily see that the charges are politically motivated.
It is hard to see the Singapore government as not corrupt when they can raise their already out of this world million dollar salaries, at a time when inflation is at a record high in Singapore. Their line of reasoning is that million dollar salaries are needed to attract talented people into the government, and to prevent them from being corrupt. What they are doing may not be illegal, as they have legalized this corruption. However, in my opinion, this is a good reflection of their moral and ethical corruption.
People who were not born and bred in Singapore will not realize the amount of legalized corruption and nepotism that goes on inside. If you think George Bush is bad, perhaps he learnt the his tricks of the trade from Lee Kuan Yew.
- A native Singaporean based in the US
Lee Swee Say
· 1 year ago
These are Gopalan Nair's exact words from his blog.
The following transpired during the last 3 days in court. The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders. There was murder, the rule of law being the repeated victim.
El Yanqui
· 1 year ago
Yes, there are consequences to speech and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. However to deride a blogger from exercising that right as something he 'shouldn't do' because a government frowns upon it is to encourage those who seek to repress that freedom.
Similarly, your definition of libel is incorrect. You are free to say untrue things without being on the wrong side of a libel suit. You are free to proclaim that the earth is flat, Scientology is a valid religion and Ben Affleck is a great actor. None of these are true of course, but you aren't going to find yourself served with libel papers.
In the U.S. you are free to criticize public figures, politicians and the like eg, McCain will be a horible president, Obama will be worse.
The benighted areas of the globe have severe restrictions and repercussions to free speech. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be exercised. It means quite the opposite.
JT
· 1 year ago
Mark Hopkins you are out to lunch.
As others have pointed out by your logic bloggers should not point out injustices of any tyrants, Hitler, Stalin, or Lee Kuan Yew.
Change comes in this world by people taking a stand. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978)
To scold Gopalan Nair for his brave stand against the tyrant Lee Kuan Yew is a gutless cowardly position to take.
c.farrell
· 1 year ago
It is wrong to say that homosexuals are not allowed to live in the country. There is a law (no longer enforced, but still on the statute book) against homosexual sexual activity. There is no law against merely BEING homosexual. In fact, Singapore has quite a thriving gay scene, and the government has said it will not discriminate against homosexuals in making appointments to the civil service.
All Comments
So, "Rizzn"... HAS Mashable been involved in "past criminal activities here"?
--
In all seriousness, I like the post, and enjoy the sobering look you have on freedom of speech on the net.
j
And they call that a free trail!
He didn't dare her to arrest him.*
Even if you were to do that in a civilised country, the judge would only be able to sue for defamation as a private citizen. Because in a civilised country, all are equal before the law.
(*At least, not in the blogspot posts I've read, and those seem to be the ones the AP story is about.)
However, he used the "prostitution" term as a figure of speech and did not mean it literally. Also, he did not dare the judge to arrest him. He dared Lee Kuan Yew, the politician involved in the court case, to bring a defamation suit against him. Please read the blog carefully.
I don't want to land in the slammer
They did violate his free speech rights. The fact that they refuse to accept it, and that people will defend them in that, shows just how fragile those rights are when they oppose those in power and why we must push to keep them unfettered all the more.
Did he continue to run wild through the streets of Singapore vandalizing property? Are you booking a flight to Singapore to run wild and vandalize property? If the answer to both questions is "no", I'd say that the punishment served it's purpose.
You did forget to mention in one paragraph that if you say something on Mashable that is just plain stupid (as opposed to civilly or criminally actionable), you are subject to the readership calling you an idiot. :-)
But you are right in one regard. People are filled with their own sense of "rights" but choose to not acknowledge that with those rights come "responsibilities" and "consequences". People get offended and upset when someone responds negatively to something they say. As if they have the right to say whatever they want but nobody has the right to respond except in the affirmative.
If you do something that you know is illegal and you get into trouble for it, don't whine and moan and beg for help from your fellow travelers. Take your punishment like a man and accept responsibility for your actions.
What you're saying is particularly true for this case. I'm not sure from the circumstances if this guy is trying to be the Singaporan Rosa Parks or if he's just spinning it that way after the fact. Either way, you have to know there will be severe consequences for your actions in a country like Singapore.
The thing is that "misdemeanors" has a different view point in Singapore and organising gangs to destroy property and intimidate people is not so readily accepted as it is by the US and European judiciary.
Surely he was being provocative, and perhaps even hoped to be arrested to attract exactly the sort of attention he is now receiving. But don't tell me that we should have no sympathy for him because he knowingly broke the law of the land. I respect those that have the courage to challenge unjust laws. When you give government officials the ability to arrest citizens for political speech, even if the arrest is nominally for "defamation" rather than expressly for the political content of the speech, you have opened the door to vast abuses of power.
Where are you going to stop with your line of reasoning? Should we all just quiet down about Aung San Suu Kyi as well? She knew the consequences of her activism, and she certainly was breaking the law of the Junta in Burma when she was arrested. How about the student that stood down the tanks in Tienanmen Square? Didn't do anything for you either?
Provacative would be posting it on his blog.
Harassing would be sending it to her email.
Asking for trouble would be doing both and then taunting the judge asking for a punishment.
Harassment is a pattern of behaviour, not a political critique which uses a crudely sexual metaphor. I think the word confuses rather than clarifies here.
I've read nothing to suggest he taunted the judge. Lee Kuan Yew, yes. Belinda Ang Saw Ean, no.
Free speech is freedom from government intervention, not freedom from responsibility. Heck, you can burn an American flag if it's your property, but don't be surprised if someone yells at you or tries to beat your ass.
The leaders have a history of using defamation lawsuits to silence political opponents. There is also an archaic law (a legacy from colonial times) that aloows them to detain a person deemed to be a security threat, without trial. This has been used in the past against political opponents as well. There has been questions and criticisms about the independence of the judiciary too.
In a true first-world democracy, which Singapore's leader claim the country to be, criticism of the government and the judiciary is fair game.
Now, it would be fair to castigate Mr. Nair if the law that he had broken was just and representative of what you would find in a developed and civilized society. It is extremely vague how he broke the law as there is no clear definition of what constitutes an insult. Would calling the judge "stupid", "blind", or a "lap dog" constitute an offence? If it does, then I and many Singaporeans have broken the law.
One can easily see that the charges are politically motivated.
It is hard to see the Singapore government as not corrupt when they can raise their already out of this world million dollar salaries, at a time when inflation is at a record high in Singapore. Their line of reasoning is that million dollar salaries are needed to attract talented people into the government, and to prevent them from being corrupt. What they are doing may not be illegal, as they have legalized this corruption. However, in my opinion, this is a good reflection of their moral and ethical corruption.
People who were not born and bred in Singapore will not realize the amount of legalized corruption and nepotism that goes on inside. If you think George Bush is bad, perhaps he learnt the his tricks of the trade from Lee Kuan Yew.
- A native Singaporean based in the US
The following transpired during the last 3 days in court. The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders. There was murder, the rule of law being the repeated victim.
Similarly, your definition of libel is incorrect. You are free to say untrue things without being on the wrong side of a libel suit. You are free to proclaim that the earth is flat, Scientology is a valid religion and Ben Affleck is a great actor. None of these are true of course, but you aren't going to find yourself served with libel papers.
In the U.S. you are free to criticize public figures, politicians and the like eg, McCain will be a horible president, Obama will be worse.
The benighted areas of the globe have severe restrictions and repercussions to free speech. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be exercised. It means quite the opposite.
As others have pointed out by your logic bloggers should not point out injustices of any tyrants, Hitler, Stalin, or Lee Kuan Yew.
Change comes in this world by people taking a stand. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978)
To scold Gopalan Nair for his brave stand against the tyrant Lee Kuan Yew is a gutless cowardly position to take.