Singapore – Legal Letter from Grand Seasons International

It appears that Tomorrow.sg has received a Legal Letter from Grand Seasons International Lawyers(referring to this entry?).

October 23, 2006
timeshare scam
Gecko said:

I have removed the original content at the request of Gecko.

Link

Submitted by gecko on October 23//10:46am and published by cowboycaleb, shianux :: add new comment | 3833 reads | trackback

Threats of legal action should never be used to quash legitimate and valid criticism on the internet and as well as that they simply draw attention to an issue that would have drifted off into the ether to have been forgotten about. The first point of contact should not be to threaten legal action.

medium_GSI-Legal1.jpg

The letter states….

Our Ref: JSG/1311/07
Date: 23 May 2007

Editor
Tomorrow.sg
Registrar: Vooju Pte Ltd
Registrant: James Seng
[Address]

Dear Sir

GRAND SEASONS INTERNATIONAL – TIMESHARE SCAM COMPANY

We act for M/s Grand Seasons International Pte Ltd.

Our clients instruct that a blog has been published in your Bulletin of Singapore Bloggers at the following url address: http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/10/23/grand_seasons_international_ti.html with the heading in bold “Grand Season International-TimeShare Scam Company”.

We are instructed that the above words are defamatory of our clients and our client’s reputation and goodwill has been disparaged and seriously damage. It is common knowledge that the Internet has millions of users who have free and open access to the words complained of.

In the premises our clients instruct that unless the above offending words are removed from the above url address and from the bulletin board within the next 5 days from the date hereof our clients shall have no alternative but to proceed as they deem fit in the matter.

Our clients also seek your co-operation to disclose the name and address of “GECKO” who has posted comment on 23/10/06 regarding our clients in the captioned matter as our clients intend to pursue their legal rights against the writer.

Yours faithfully,

Jagjit Singh Gill

cc clients

And the offending article which will of course now receive far more attention than it ever would have is available below…

read more…

Singapore court rejects Far Eastern Economic Review’s bid to have defamation suit dropped

The Associated Press
Thursday, February 22, 2007

SINGAPORE: The Far Eastern Economic Review has failed to convince a Singapore court to throw out defamation lawsuits filed against it by two of the Southeast Asian city-state’s leaders, the magazine’s lawyer said Thursday.

Review Publishing Company Ltd. and Hugo Restall, the Review’s editor, were sued for defamation by Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, in August last year over an article about a prominent Singapore opposition activist.

Peter Low, the two defendants’ lawyer in Singapore, said they had sought to question the authority of the city-state to hear the lawsuits, but were rejected in a judgment issued Wednesday. Low declined to comment further, saying he was awaiting instructions from his clients.

Because the Review is a Hong-Kong-based monthly which does not have any employees in Singapore, the defendants challenged the right of the Singapore court to enforce damages outside of the city-state, as well as the way the Lees served their legal papers on the two parties overseas.

Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon turned down the magazine’s appeal, writing in his judgment that it was clear that the Lees were limiting their claim for damages to Singapore and that the legal papers had been served on the magazine in an appropriate manner.

In the Review article that the Lees say defamed them, Restall wrote about the opposition Singapore Democratic Party’s secretary general Chee Soon Juan’s campaign for more democratic freedoms in the tightly controlled city-state and how the ruling party has sued a number of opposition politicians.

Singapore’s government later banned the Review, which has more than 1,000 subscribers in Singapore, because it did not appoint a legal representative and pay a 200,000 Singapore dollar (US$126,150; €99,430) security bond — new requirements that are unrelated to the lawsuit, but that the Review has called unjustified.

Singapore’s leaders have drawn criticism over several successful defamation suits in past years against journalists and political opponents. The leaders say they have sued to defend their personal and professional reputations.

to comment