That blog spat again?! A*Star on why it wanted to sue student
In this morning’s edition of the AsiaOne Online news reports, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has finally come out to explain why it had wanted to sue a blogger, Mr Chen Jiahao, who posted comments about the agency in his blog in 2005.
It was because he had implied that the agency was corrupt.
Among other things, he alleged that A*Star bribed universities to enrol its scholars, paid professors to accept scholars into their labs and suggested that its scholars enrol in universities with which it had 'connections' rather than the more expensive, top-notch ones.
The agency has decided not to disclose the exact nature of Mr Chen's remarks in the past as this would amount to repeating the libel.
However, many people, especially those in the blogosphere, mistakenly thought that
A*Star was taking issue with Mr Chen’s query about the high Grade Point Average (GPA) its scholars must achieve. They may also mistakenly have thought that the agency had forced Mr Chen to shut his blog site, casting the blogger as a victim of bullying.
Even Amnesty International cited this incident to be a form of government clampdown on freedom of expression (but then again, of course they would say that!).
Philip Yeo, the outgoing chairman of A*Star, said that the threat to sue had nothing to do with the GPA issue as anyone was entitled to have an opinion on it the subject. But Mr Chen's assertions that A*Star indulged in bribery and corruption went well beyond fair comment.
Mr Chen's allegations had damaged the reputation of the agency and its officers and scholars, who were unjustly portrayed as being not good enough to get university places on their own merit.
Now that the facts are out, A*Star does seem to be entitled to sue to redeem its reputation.
Nominated MP and technology lawyer Siew Kum Hong (former Director of Keystone Law Corporation), who had seen Mr Chen's original posts on Mr Ng's site, agreed that the revelations put a new complexion on an incident many saw as a 'heavyweight' agency facing down a 'poor student'.
Writing on his blog, Kum Hong said that Mr Chen's statements might well have appeared in the context of a posting discussing A*Star's scholarship policy as a whole.
'But they went way beyond fair criticism as such, and alleged outright corruption by A*Star in obtaining places for its scholars.
'This is a case where I can, and I think most unbiased and rational people would be able to, completely understand why A*Star threatened legal action,' Mr Siew said.
People need to understand they will be held accountable for what they say or publish, whether in the physical or cyber environment (I dealt with defamation a little in a previous entry on Human Rights in Singapore, see below). These legal liabilities include defamation, libel, copyright and intellectual property infringements, inciting others to commit offences such as the two Singaporean bloggers who were charged for posting racist remarks in their blog sites.
Perhaps one solution might be to establishing some sort of guidelines for bloggers.
Mr Tan Min-Liang (former Technology lawyer and associate director at Keystone Law Corporation, current CEO of Razer) believes that such guidelines would be a win-win situation (although these comments were made in a different context, that of employee blogs, I humbly suggest that it would ring true here as well).
=================
UPDATE:
Call for blogging code of conduct
I found this article in the BBC website which highlights some of the abuses of blogging and calls for a code of conduct.
In this morning’s edition of the AsiaOne Online news reports, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has finally come out to explain why it had wanted to sue a blogger, Mr Chen Jiahao, who posted comments about the agency in his blog in 2005.
It was because he had implied that the agency was corrupt.
Among other things, he alleged that A*Star bribed universities to enrol its scholars, paid professors to accept scholars into their labs and suggested that its scholars enrol in universities with which it had 'connections' rather than the more expensive, top-notch ones.
The agency has decided not to disclose the exact nature of Mr Chen's remarks in the past as this would amount to repeating the libel.
However, many people, especially those in the blogosphere, mistakenly thought that
A*Star was taking issue with Mr Chen’s query about the high Grade Point Average (GPA) its scholars must achieve. They may also mistakenly have thought that the agency had forced Mr Chen to shut his blog site, casting the blogger as a victim of bullying.
Even Amnesty International cited this incident to be a form of government clampdown on freedom of expression (but then again, of course they would say that!).
Philip Yeo, the outgoing chairman of A*Star, said that the threat to sue had nothing to do with the GPA issue as anyone was entitled to have an opinion on it the subject. But Mr Chen's assertions that A*Star indulged in bribery and corruption went well beyond fair comment.
Mr Chen's allegations had damaged the reputation of the agency and its officers and scholars, who were unjustly portrayed as being not good enough to get university places on their own merit.
Now that the facts are out, A*Star does seem to be entitled to sue to redeem its reputation.
Nominated MP and technology lawyer Siew Kum Hong (former Director of Keystone Law Corporation), who had seen Mr Chen's original posts on Mr Ng's site, agreed that the revelations put a new complexion on an incident many saw as a 'heavyweight' agency facing down a 'poor student'.
Writing on his blog, Kum Hong said that Mr Chen's statements might well have appeared in the context of a posting discussing A*Star's scholarship policy as a whole.
'But they went way beyond fair criticism as such, and alleged outright corruption by A*Star in obtaining places for its scholars.
'This is a case where I can, and I think most unbiased and rational people would be able to, completely understand why A*Star threatened legal action,' Mr Siew said.
People need to understand they will be held accountable for what they say or publish, whether in the physical or cyber environment (I dealt with defamation a little in a previous entry on Human Rights in Singapore, see below). These legal liabilities include defamation, libel, copyright and intellectual property infringements, inciting others to commit offences such as the two Singaporean bloggers who were charged for posting racist remarks in their blog sites.
Perhaps one solution might be to establishing some sort of guidelines for bloggers.
Mr Tan Min-Liang (former Technology lawyer and associate director at Keystone Law Corporation, current CEO of Razer) believes that such guidelines would be a win-win situation (although these comments were made in a different context, that of employee blogs, I humbly suggest that it would ring true here as well).
=================
UPDATE:
Call for blogging code of conduct
I found this article in the BBC website which highlights some of the abuses of blogging and calls for a code of conduct.
posted by Clem | 9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home