NKL: Mr Singh, Roy’s article didn’t damage PM’s reputation

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

Mr Singh, Roy’s article didn’t damage PM’s reputation

May 28th, 2014 | Author: Contributions




PM Lee


I refer to PM Lee’s lawyer Mr Davinder Singh’s first letter of demand to Roy
Ngerng.

Point No. 8 of the letter claims that Roy’s article was clearly malicious. It
is not clear why Mr Singh characterized the article as such as he made no
explanations. Is a false claim automatically and clearly a malicious one?

Mr Singh’s claim for damage is based on Roy’s article being widely read and
widely circulated through the internet. However, an article’s wide readership
and circulation doesn’t necessarily imply damage done to PM Lee’s reputation. If
readers do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion on the PM, then no damage has
been done. Examples abound from the internet and from the press of people who do
not believe Roy’s supposed assertion:

• Most of the points he raised were without merit and probably reflected a
lack of understanding of how complex financial systems work.

- ST Forum, CPF cannot behave like hedge fund, Jason Soon Hun Khim, 27 May
2014

• Unfortunately he said the wrong thing and got sued by a government
minister.

- TR Emeritus, I’d debate the person openly if he accuses me of something,
Ben, 26 May 2014

• For a start, I do think this blogger Mr. Roy Ngerng has probably gone a
little too far by saying you misappropriated funds. It is indeed not well
substantiated. I think you can rest assured Sir that most Singaporeans are well
conceived enough to know that this is not well served on you.

- TR Emeritus, An open letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong, Y. C. Ho, 26 May
2014

• He could be overzealous this time to say something unfair to you. Even many
of us think it was a bit overboard.

- TR Emeritus, What is PM Lee trying to prove?, Albert, 25 May 2014

• If you look closely at Roy Ngerng’s defamatory infographic, it defamed not
only PM Lee but also other individuals like Tharman and Ho Ching.

- TR Emeritus, 5 myths about Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Tan Hong Kit, 23
May 2014

Thus far, of so many posts on the Internet about the law suit, I have not
come across one that expresses agreement with Roy’s supposed assertion that the
PM misappropriated CPF money. In that case, where is the supposed damage to PM
Lee’s reputation?

Some people assume that the damage, based on past cases, should be around
$200,000 to $300,000. But that is the price of the PM’s reputation, not the cost
of the damage to the PM’s reputation. The damage to a $1 million Ferrari cannot
automatically be $1 million. Suppose the Ferrari’s car plate was damaged, the
cost of damage is just the cost of the car plate, not the price of the entire
Ferrari. PM Lee’s reputation may be worth $200,000 to $300,000. But the damage
to his reputation is not automatically $200,000 to $300,000. The damage has to
be quantified.

One way of quantifying damage is through interviews. If we do that, we may
find that 60% of Singaporeans do not believe Roy but believes PM Lee instead
strongly, passionately, unreservedly and eternally. No amount of Roy can tarnish
their good faith and belief in PM Lee. Hence PM Lee’s reputation remains intact
and is in no way damaged in so far as his 60% supporters are concerned.
Similarly, as much as 40% of Singaporeans are already against the PM to begin
with, with or without Roy. Roy’s article did nothing more to tarnish the PM’s
already tarnished reputation in this group. So if we exclude the 60% on whom PM
Lee’s reputation remains untarnished and the 40% on whom PM Lee’s reputation was
already tarnished before Roy wrote his article, there will be no new damage to
PM Lee’s reputation arising from Roy’s article.

We can also look at PM Lee’s vote percentage in the next election. If the
percentage remains more or less the same, wouldn’t that suggest that the PM’s
reputation remains largely intact and does not suffer any material damage?

Mr Singh’s second letter

I refer too to Mr Singh’s second letter of demand to Roy. Mr Singh claims
that Roy has opportunistically used the lawsuit to raise his profile and to
garner support. But didn’t Mr Singh acknowledge in his earlier letter that Roy
has the most popular blog in Singapore and that it was foreseeable that Roy’s
article will be widely republished across the internet?

Why then would Roy need to use the lawsuit to raise his profile when his
profile was already so good? Conversely, if Roy has to resort to using the
lawsuit to raise his profile, doesn’t that suggest that the initial damage was
somewhat limited? Isn’t Mr Singh contradicting himself somewhat?

Thank you

Ng Kok
Lim

* This article is for consumption on
TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the express permission of the
author.


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.