In my last post on Nuffnang, I had meant it to be one of the last post in a series on Sisuahlai for there is nothing more to add. I did note that Robb was quick to reply to all queries whether from me or from others on that thread until I asked something which he couldn’t reply. Or perhaps he had learnt best not to respond to negative publicity (not so in this case, as it was more of a negative post on Robb Chew and NOT Nuffnang). However, in this case, he had tried to avoid answering my question to which I have no choice but to write and entire post and ping it and hopefully will gather enough attention to warrant his reply. Let us see okay?

In my previous post, I have somewhat felt Sisuahlai had suddenly turn himself to be like every other authority fearing blogger who at the sight of threats would remove his postings. Then at the opportunity of being given back his privilege, he would take it even though it meant compromising his integrity. To think I wrote a couple of posts supporting him. But this post ain’t about supporting him but rather to deal with the issue at hand.

Having done law in my undergraduate studies, I have seen many who misuse their tiny knowledge of law to bully the weak. I always felt law favours the rich and powerful. Not unless you know it more than them.

A very good example would be Singapore’s NKF TT Durai. He thought he was an elite. He thought he had the backing of the government (note that Ho Ching and Mrs Goh, wife of SM did come out and support him). But he has forgotten that he was suing the GOVERNMENT media mouthpiece, The Straits Times. For his arrogance, he was punished. He thought he could sue for defamation even though what The Straits Times have written is true. You cannot forget the basic of the law. In order to prove defamation, you must acknowledge that what was transmitted, in this case, written media, was malicious and had material loss and hence defamation.

Now back to the issue at hand on Nuffnang. To be exact Robb Chew of Nuffnang. And if he had the approval of his boss for that particular response, then it would be Nuffnang. There was no material loss as there is no mass exodus of publisher neither was there any sponsors who had felt threatened with Sisuahlai’s posting. So it is almost impossible for Nuffnang to prove any material loss as a result of their so called defamation.

Then they have to prove that the graphics in question in malicious in intent. One good test would be the “reasonable man on the street” standard. A quick way of finding out is to pass the picture to any reasonable person of sound mind to see how they interpret the graphics if they do find it offending to nuffnang.

It has never been easy to prove defamation and even now, public felt that Vincent Tan’s case had perhaps been tainted with allegations of Lingam involvement.

So my question remains to Robb as to who had actually dispense that defamation advice to him, and if it was a legal firm, it would be interesting to see how that legal firm conclude that there was defamation. There is no point quoting sections of laws if you don’t apply it correctly. And best if you can find precedent cases to it and apply it to show how defamation may have occurred. Perhaps my knowledge in defamation law has been outdated or may be lacking. And if so, by pointing out to me facts would help me improve my interpretation of such laws.

If Robb had written that letter by himself without any legal help, I believe an apology should have been given to the “victim”. Just help make the world a better place, do not let people who may think they have knowledge of certain things bully those that are less well informed.