Question 5 : Explore other ways to foster social cohesion in Singapore The other ways are Economic progress plus Security and peace. Economic comes after peace and stability so foreign investors would invest and set up companies in Singapore as their investments would be protected in Singapore. Economic with peace and harmony can benefit a country as tourists usually avoid countries with violence and conflict and being a multi-ethnic country, Singapore attracts tourists from worldwide. People feel safe in Singapore as all SIngaporeans enjoy the security and peace it has which is one of the benefits of living in a multi-ethnic society.

Lives In Singapore... 9:53 PM

Question 4 : Why is it important to foster social cohesion? It's important as after Singapore gained independence, Singapore has enjoyed racial and religious harmony among its people. Lots of policies and programmes have been implemented to ensure that all, regardless of race or religion to enjoy harmonious living environment but the challenge to maintain racial and religious harmony is still ongoing. Singaporeans had the determination to maintain harmonious living environment which we were fortunate to enjoy it all these years and the challenge for us is to create opportunities to nurture this spirit and to make it flourish.

Lives In Singapore... 9:03 PM

Question 3 : What were the measures taken to foster social cohesion (unity among the people) in multi-ethnic Singapore? The measurements are : 1)Building a national identity - Multi-racialism, Common practices and Bilingualism. 2)Safeguarding the interests of the minority groups - Minority representation and Self-help groups. 3)Developing common space - Events and programmes, Opportunities offered by educations and Common living space provided.

Lives In Singapore... 8:38 PM

Question 2 part II : How religious issues could divide the people. In the 1940s, a Dutch couple was imprisoned by Japanese. So they placed their daughter, Maria Hertogh, under the care of a Malay lady called Aminah so Maria was raised as a Muslim. She was married to a Malay teacher at the age of 13.


Maria Hertogh riots was caused when Maria's parents that she be returned to them which followed by a court trial. This court trial had wide media coverage and provoked lots of unhappiness among the Muslim community as the court gave the custody of Maria back to the Hertoghs after much consideration.


The large crowd outside the court felt that the British legal system as it was unfair to the Muslims so this sparked off anger from the Muslims towards the Europeans and Eurasian communities which resulted in the outbreaks of the riots.


During this riot, 5 people are dead and 100 people were injured. This event had much media coverage in the English,Malay and Tamil newspapers. The court's decision to annul Maria's marriage and pictures of Maria in a Christian convent were published. These caused unhappiness in the Muslim community as they felt that the welfare for the Muslims were not looked into.


We shouldn't take what is not ours as we won't be happy and will feel guilty for the rest of our life, we will get rewarded for helping to take care of someone's child but not to own him or her forever. One should not be too greedy or he or she will suffer in hell or be punished by God.


That's because some people are very loyalty to their God and doing evil deeds will make them regret and they would want to repent before they suffer the consequences while some will believe in God after they suffer for committing sins.

Lives In Singapore... 9:28 PM

Question 2 part I : What are the challenges of multi-ethnicity in Singapore? The first incident occurred on 21st July 1964 during a Malay procession that marked the Prophet Muhammad's birthday and the second incident occurred on 3rd September when a Malay was found murdered at Geylang Serai which believed to be done by a group of Chinese.


25,000 Malays formed a procession to celebrate Muhammad's birthday by going through Geylang Serai, a group of Malays was dispersed and were asked to rejoin the group by a Chinese policeman but instead of obeying, the Malays attacked Chinese passer-by and spectators too which triggered the July riot in Singapore. The second riot which i believed it was cause due to the Chinese having hatred in their heart which they took revenge by killing a Malay at the place where the Malays had their procession and also the place where the Chinese were attacked.


36 people were killed, 556 people were injured and 3000 were arrested in the first incident. A Malay was killed and a curfew was imposed in Geylang, Joo Chiat and Siglap. This second incident got 13 people killed, 106 people injured and 480 were arrested.


We learned that violence cannot solve anything and it will only make the matter more serious and more unsolvable which results in injuries or deaths. Riots will make the people in the country itself to lose trust of people who are different from one another which does not benefit the economy and the country.


People might think of the riots that happened in their country which cause them to be unhappy as their family or themsevles might have experience the incidents of the riots which will bring back lots of sad memories.

Lives In Singapore... 9:52 PM

Question 1 : How different are we as Singaporeans? Singaporeans are seperated by 4 races,
MICE-Malay,Indian,Chinese and Eurasian.
We are different from our Religion and Mother Tongue.
Different Colours,different Origins.

Due to the time constrain,i will be posting in the late afternoon tomorrow.

Lives In Singapore... 8:47 PM

Question Required To Do For Ss-Ipw. 1. How different are we as Singaporeans?
2. What are the challenges of multi-ethnicity in Singapore?

How racial issues could divide the people.
What were the events that led to the race riots of 1964?
What were the causes of the race riots 1964?
What happened during the race riots?
What were the consequences of the race riots?
What were the lessons learnt from the riots?
Why do people react sensitively to race issues in Singapore?

How religious issues could divide the people.
What were the events that led to the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950?
What were the causes of the Maria Hertogh riots?
What happened during the riots?
What were the consequences of the riots?
What were the lessons learnt from the riots?
Why do people react sensitively to religious issues?

How issues relating to transnational terrorism could divide the people.

3. What were the measures taken to foster social cohesion (unity among the people) in multi-ethnic Singapore?
4. Why is it important to foster social cohesion?
5. Explore other ways to foster social cohesion in Singapore.

Your group will set up a blog to reflect on the challenges at social cohesion that Singapore (a multi-racial society) has faced and is facing today. You are to blog about how the government has managed ethnic diversity and the importance of doing so. You are also to explore other ways of bonding Singapore and to invite comments on your suggestions or proposals.

Lives In Singapore... 7:43 PM

As Respond To Sz Post,23/8/09 Its totally agreeable on what shaozun had said,
in the previous post.
Maintaining racial harmony is a very tough jobs.
Everyone plays a part in it.

Race is a specific group of people,who have the same skin colour(in a more racist way of saying),
same thinking,same religion or etc.

In singapore,different race are living happily together.

This is only happening,due to the hard works of our ancestor,and older generations.
and they had did their jobs,making racial harmony possible.
And from now on,its "our" jobs,to maintain racial harmony,and build a strong and
tough bonds between singaporeans.

And on the other hand,teachers tend to have more "power",
on negotiating, and speaking freely.
they(not saying who),expect a explaination from us(not saying who).
and which we had said,they did not accept the explaination,
putting us in a hard spot,as in between the pressure of parents and teachers(not saying who again).
so i hope that teachers,will accept the explaination of the students,when they wanted it.
And not to stuff words into our mouths,which is call 诽谤(in chinese),slander(in english).
And i do hope that you(not saying who again),understand the consiquences of slandering.

以上的事，纯属虚构，不是对人对事。
这些是我的意见,如有不满,请拨打9***9**9,谢谢（开玩笑）．
欢迎您留下意见.


Translation:all this are just stories,
not pointing at anyone.
and all of this is my own personal opinion.
if unhappy,please leave.

welcome to leave comment.

Author:BEhiNd SOmethiNg
yours faithfully.

this is the law,chapter on regarding of deflamation.
*do not read if lazy* *thanks*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 7 DEFAMATION

Introduction

21.7.1 The objectives of the tort of defamation are, on the one hand, to protect personal reputation and, on the other, to ensure that the right of free speech and public communication are not unduly compromised. Within the tort of defamation, these competing interests and rights have to be judiciously balanced.

21.7.2 There are two forms of defamation: libel (words in permanent form) and slander (words in temporal or transient form). Libel is actionable per se without proof of special damage whilst slander would require such proof, unless specific common law and statutory exceptions apply. For example, special damage is not required to be proved in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on at the time of the publication (see section 5 of the Defamation Act).

21.7.3 Apart from the civil tort of defamation, section 499 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of criminal defamation. For the prosecution of such an offence, it must be shown that the accused made the publication with the intention to harm the reputation of the defamed person, or knows or has reason to believe that such harm would result. The focus of this section is, however, on the civil tort of defamation.

The Elements of the Cause of Action

21.7.4 The three main requirements for a cause of action under the tort of defamation are as follows:

(a) The statement must be defamatory in nature;
(b) The statement must refer to the plaintiff; and
(c) The statement must be published.

(a) Defamatory in Nature

21.7.5 A statement is defamatory in nature if it lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or causes him or her to be shunned or avoided. This is based on the objective reasonable man test. The judge determines whether the test is satisfied in a particular case upon hearing the evidence adduced at the trial. There are no jury trials in Singapore.

21.7.6 In terms of construction, a statement may be defamatory in two ways: (i) via the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used or as may be reasonably inferred from the words; and (ii) by way of true or legal innuendo. True innuendo arises from words which appear innocuous, but may be understood to be disparaging of the plaintiff by third parties who have knowledge of special facts which are not generally known. To support a cause of action based on true innuendo, the plaintiff will have to plead those special facts known to such third parties to whom the statement has been published.

(b) Reference to Plaintiff

21.7.7 The plaintiff must show that the third party would reasonably understand the defamatory words to refer to the former. The intention of the defendant to defame the plaintiff is not a prerequisite. Thus, the defamation action may still succeed notwithstanding that the defendant did not intend to refer to the plaintiff, but to some other person or even a fictitious character bearing the same name.

21.7.8 Apart from natural persons, legal persons such as incorporated bodies (including companies) and some unincorporated bodies (for example, societies registered under the Societies Act, Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed with the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name) may also bring defamation actions against persons who have made defamatory statements adversely affecting their commercial, trading or governing reputations.

21.7.9 In class or group defamation actions, the issue is whether the defamatory statement, though targeted at a class or group, is nonetheless reasonably understood by the reasonable third party to refer to the individual claimant. To ascertain whether such reference exists, criteria such as the group size, the generality and extravagance of the defamatory statement and other factors may be taken into consideration.

(c) Publication

21.7.10 The defamatory statement must have been communicated to third parties who would reasonably understand the statement to be defamatory of the plaintiff. Thus, the communication of the defamatory statement to the plaintiff alone would not be sufficient.

Defences: (a) Justification

21.7.11 The plaintiff is not required to prove that the defamatory statement is false. Instead, the defendant may establish the defence of justification by proving that the defamatory statement is true in substance and in fact. Where the allegedly defamatory statement is a comment, both the facts on which the comment is based and the comment itself must be substantiated. Similarly, where an innuendo is pleaded, both the statement and the innuendo have to be justified. Particulars of the statement(s) of fact and the true facts relied upon by the defendant must be pleaded (Order 78 Rule 3(2), Rules of Court). The defendant is not required to substantiate every charge so long as the unsubstantiated charges do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation (see section 8 of the Defamation Act). The defence of justification normally constitutes a complete defence against the plaintiff’s claims.

(b) Fair Comment

21.7.12 To succeed in the defence of fair comment, the defendant has to show that

(i) the words complained of are in the nature of a comment (that is, an expression of opinion as opposed to facts);
(ii) the comment is based on true facts – it is not necessary to prove the truth of all allegations of facts but only those facts alleged or referred to in the defamatory words which form the basis of the opinion (see section 9 of the Defamation Act);
(iii) the comment is fair, that is, it must be an honestly-held opinion of a fair-minded person though some allowance may be given for prejudices and exaggeration; and
(iv) the comment relates to a matter of public interest, that is, a matter which the public at large may legitimately be interested in or concerned with.

21.7.13 The defence of fair comment will not succeed if the defendant’s comments are motivated by malice. An opinion is made maliciously if it is shown that the defendent did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence (see paragraph 21.7.14).

(c) Privilege

21.7.14 The next defence against the plaintiff’s claim in defamation is based on the concept of privilege. There are two types of privilege: absolute and qualified privilege. Absolute privilege cannot be defeated by the plaintiff’s proof that the defendant’s statements were motivated by malice. On the other hand, qualified privilege can be defeated by proof of malice. A statement is made maliciously if it was actuated by dominant improper motive(s). In addition, a statement which is made without belief in its truth or recklessly (that is, with indifference to its truth or falsity) is one that is published with malice.

Absolute Privilege

21.7.15 Absolute privilege arises in the following situations or circumstances:

(i) Parliamentary proceedings – the Members of Parliament are conferred immunity from both civil and criminal actions in respect of defamatory statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings (see section 6 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed). Similarly, the reports, papers and journals relating to the proceedings the publication of which is authorised by Parliament are immune (see section 7 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act).
(ii) Judicial proceedings – immunity is conferred on the judges, counsel, witnesses and parties in respect of statements made in the course of or for the purposes of judicial proceedings, including proceedings conducted by tribunals and bodies recognised by law and acting judicially. The fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of judicial proceedings which are publicly heard is also absolutely privileged (section 11 of the Defamation Act). This privilege extends to a ‘fair and bona fide’ comment on such report.
(iii) Executive matters – this generally covers communications made by ministers and civil servants relating to state affairs.

Qualified Privilege

21.7.16 The defence of qualified privilege arises in the following instances:

(i) Where the defendant has an interest or duty to communicate information and the third party has the corresponding interest or duty to receive the information – for instance, communications made by solicitors for the purposes of advancing clients’ interests and communications between employers and employees in relation to work matters are ordinarily accorded qualified privilege.
(ii) Where the defendant makes a statement with a view to protect his or her self-interests (such as when he
or she is responding to accusations), such statements are privileged to the extent that they are published bona fide as well as relevant and necessary to protect such interests.
(iii) Where reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings are fair and accurate, qualified privilege arises at common law (that is, outside the scope of the statutory provisions). Newspaper reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings in the Commonwealth are also accorded qualified privilege statutorily (section 12 of the Defamation Act).

(d) Innocent Dissemination

21.7.17 The defence of innocent dissemination is generally available to intermediaries such as retail vendors, libraries and delivery agents. To avail of such a defence, the intermediary who participated in the distribution of the defamatory statements must show that he or she did not know that the publication was libellous, the circumstances or work could not have alerted the defendant to the libellous content and that such ignorance was not due to his or her negligence.

(e) Offer of Amends

21.7.18 The Offer of Amends is a procedure which permits a defendant to ward off a potential defamation action (or to procure, if the action has already commenced, its discontinuation thereof). The defendant has to first show that he or she has ‘innocently’ defamed another person and exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication. The defendant must also offer to make a public apology and to take reasonably practicable steps to inform the persons who have been distributed with the copies of the publication that the contents are defamatory of the aggrieved party. The Offer of Amends constitutes a defence against any defamation action by the aggrieved party. If the offer is accepted by the aggrieved party and its terms are complied with by the defendant, the aggrieved party is precluded from suing the defendant in respect of the defamatory publication (see section 7 of the Defamation Act).

(f) Assent by Plaintiff

21.7.19 Where the plaintiff had clearly and unequivocally assented to the publication of the defamatory statement, that constitutes a valid defence to the defamation action.

Remedies

21.7.20 A plaintiff who has successfully established a cause of action in defamation against which there are no valid defences may obtain (a) monetary damages; and/or (b) injunctions restraining the publication, and/or (c) in exceptional circumstances, injunctions mandating that the defendant withdraw the defamatory statement.

Damages

21.7.21 Damages are awarded to vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff. The gravity of the statement, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication and the effect of the publication on the plaintiff are factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum of the damages. In this regard, the awards in personal injury cases do not provide a helpful guide. The plaintiff has to prove that he or she suffered special damage, except in cases of libel or certain forms of slander (see Section 21.7.2 above). Whilst the principles of causation and remoteness are applicable in defamation, the quantification of special damages is not, however, an exact science.

Aggravated Damages

21.7.22 Aggravated damages may be awarded in appropriate cases. Aggravated damages, which are compensatory in nature, may be awarded in respect of the additional injury caused by the defendant’s conduct or bad motives. For purposes of ascertaining damages, the plaintiff is required to give full particulars in the statement of claim of the details of any conduct by the defendant which has allegedly increased the injury suffered (Order 78 Rule 3(3A), Rules of Court). The amounts for both general compensatory and aggravated damages (if any) are awarded to the plaintiff in one lump sum.

Exemplary Damages

21.7.23 Exemplary or punitive damages are less common. Nonetheless, exemplary damages may be awarded as a deterrent measure where the defendant had published the defamatory statement in the expectation of profit or gain and was aware that the publication was untrue.

Mitigation

21.7.24 The defendant may make or offer an apology with a view to mitigating damages (see section 10 of the Defamation Act). Similarly, an undertaking by the defendant not to republish would generally go towards the mitigation of damages.

Injunctions

21.7.25 Injunctions are usually granted to prevent the future publication of defamatory materials only where such further publication is reasonably apprehended. The courts are generally more cautious of issuing interlocutory injunctions, and will do so only where it is clear that the words complained of were libellous and no defence could possibly apply.

Internet Defamation

21.7.26 With the advent of technology, globalisation and rise in the usage of the Internet, defamation in cyberspace is a real issue today. This problem, though not unique to Singapore, can have a significant impact considering the high proportion of Internet usage within the country for private, commercial and public purposes.

Internet Service Providers

21.7.27 With respect to the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act protects an ISP from liability arising from the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of third party materials, if the ISP were merely providing access to such materials. A third party refers, in this context, to a person over which the ISP has no effective control.

Conflicts of Laws

21.7.28 Defamation on the Internet also poses conflicts of law issues, particularly in relation to jurisdiction and choice of law. (On Conflicts of Laws, see Chapter 6)

--------
And
--------
Intimidation,

SECTION 3 INTIMIDATION

The Cause of Action

21.3.1 If A makes a threat of unlawful conduct against B so as to prevent B from doing that which he is entitled to do, resulting in harm to C, A is liable to C.

Threat of Unlawful Conduct

21.3.2 The threat made by A must have the effect of compelling B to comply with A’s wishes so as to avoid the unpleasant consequences threatened by A. It is insufficient if A merely makes idle abuses of which B takes little or no notice. The threat must also relate to unlawful conduct, such as the commission of a crime, tort, or contractual breach.

Damage

21.3.3 This tort is only actionable where the aggrieved party, C, has suffered damage as a result of A’s threat. Such damage includes all intended losses as well as damages that are not too remote.

Two-party Liability

21.3.4 The paradigm within which the tort of intimidation arises usually involves three parties: A threatens B with a view to cause loss to C. There is some suggestion that the tort may also arise in a two-party scenario, where A makes an unlawful threat against B, thereby causing loss to B. However, the imposition of tortious liability in this latter situation is more controversial because it has the tendency to obscure the distinction between the tort of intimidation and the threatened unlawful act.

----------
Additional,
----------

CONSPIRACY.
where 2-3 person(not saying who),
agree to go ahead with deflamation and intimidation.

SECTION 4 CONSPIRACY

The Cause of Action

21.4.1 Two or more persons commit the tort of conspiracy if they agree on a course of conduct to harm another. A conspiracy to commit an illegal act may also amount to a criminal offence. In the civil sphere, the tort of conspiracy may either be a straightforward conspiracy to injure, or a conspiracy using unlawful means.

(a) Conspiracy to Injure

Combination

21.4.2 The agreement or combination between the alleged conspirators is a rudimentary element of the tort of conspiracy to injure. Whether this element is established is largely a question of fact. The agreement may either be express or of a tacit nature. However, the mere proof of an agreement is insufficient as it has to be demonstrated that each of the conspirators has acted, or taken some step to further their common design.

Predominant Purpose to Injure

21.4.3 The conspirators’ intention to harm the victim is the gist of this tort. Thus, it is necessary to prove that such ill-intent is the predominant purpose with which the conspirators acted. It follows that where it can be proven that the design of the alleged conspirators is motivated by some legitimate purpose (such as the protection of their own economic interests), the tort is not made out even if injury to the victim is an unavoidable consequence of the scheme.

Damage

21.4.4 The victim of the conspiracy has to prove that he has suffered pecuniary loss. It is generally sufficient if such losses can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

(b) Conspiracy by Unlawful Means

21.4.5 A conspiracy using unlawful means is unlike the simple conspiracy to injure in two ways: first, it is characterised by the use of unlawful means; and secondly, while it requires proof of the conspirators’ intention to harm the victim, such intention does not have to be their predominant motive.

Unlawful Means

21.4.6 It is clear that an agreement between two or more persons to commit a tort (such as intimidation, or procuring a breach of contract) would amount to a conspiracy by unlawful means. A scheme to commit crimes that involve the use of violence or fraud or dishonesty would also clearly suffice. Beyond that, however, there is uncertainty as to whether other types of unlawful conduct (such as breach of contract and breach of statutory duty) would be regarded as ‘unlawful means’ for the purposes of this tort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted From http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/EconomicTorts.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summing up,
A group of people(not saying who),
whose CONSPIRACY to go ahead with DEFAMATION & INTIMIDATION.

End of passage.

Lives In Singapore... 10:33 PM