From a Singapore Angle

Last updated 1410 hrs May 6 -0400 unless otherwise noted (because of this)

The AcidFlask Affair covered on From a Singapore Angle: Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

notes:

Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers

CNA has a new story out, following a press conference given by A*Star (jump to it)

Tomorrow.sg has also published the same, there acknowledged to be "an email from AcidFlask" himself. As far as I can tell, it is identical to the one put out by Steve Mc Dermott except for the addition of this last bit (in Tomorrow):

This message has been bcc:ed to forty concerned friends and fellow Singaporean bloggers. Since I apparently cannot trust your organization to make a neutral and factually accurate statement, perhaps I can rely on them to do a better job.

Discussions are apace in the comments section of the Tomorrow feature. addendum: (0730 hrs May 8 -0400): A reader was puzzled, "Which came first, the one by Steve or the one by Tomorrow?" As far as I know, Tomorrow first published it (timestamped Thur May 5). In fact, I caught the RSS on my bloglines late Thursday night (-0400), but also noticed that it was very soon taken down. Very early the next morning, I noticed that Steve Mc Dermott published what looked to be identical material. In the meantime, I emailed one of the Tomorrow editors, asking him what happened. He said the editors were seeking Acid's permission. By early afternoon here, Tomorrow re-published the thing.

* * * * *

With the publication of AcidFlask's own side of the story by Steve Mc Dermott, the stage is set for a new wave of blogospheric discussion. The "press statement" consist (verbatim) of what looks like an email ~~that Steve said he received from AcidFlask, which is also an email~~ directed to a journalist at CNA, taking the news agency to task for the inaccuracies in its earlier reports. [EDIT: my apologies for the error--that's what you get for blogging at 5am in the morning; Steve Mc Dermott did not say anything about how he got his hands on the email] It contains a version of the full story as told by AcidFlask himself.

One thing that stands out is that, on this account, even the TODAYonline report (May 6)--the most accurate one by any news agency to date--contains a potential factual inaccuracy. The TODAYonline report says: "Mr Chen...had written in his blog about A*Star's new policy that required scholars to maintain a 3.8 grade point average...he commented that this was unnecessary, as students may end up picking easy classes over more challenging ones." This gives the impression that the exact cause of the threatened suit is know. On AcidFlask's own telling in the press statement email, this would have been pure speculation unless TODAY has access to infomation from A*Star indicating otherwise:

On April 22 (Friday), I received the first email from Mr. Philip Yeo, chairman of A*STAR, dated 5:44 am GMT-5 which notified me that he had earmarked a post on my blog (#442) for legal action. Over the next three days he sent me a total of eleven emails which were of a threatening and insulting nature, demanding that I remove "all" the posts on my blog or face legal action for defaming A*STAR and himself.

Despite writing to him three times seeking clarification by email, he had refused to elaborate on which specific remarks he had found offensive and reiterated his demand to remove "everything" on my blog. Since my end of semester examinations begin this Friday (May 6), I am sure you can appreciate how I was certainly not in the mood to sift through the 400-odd posts that I had written on my blog and edit or remove anything that was potentially defamatory. Therefore the only choice I had to stem the barrage of emails was to take the whole thing off-line. It was only when I wrote to him, informing him of my taking the blog down that he sent me a final (and twelfth) email last Tuesday, saying that his lawyer would follow up with amendments to my apology posted online.

...

I would like to emphasize that I still do not know exactly what I had written that he had found offensive, and that Mr. Yeo had demanded that I remove all posts which mentioned either him or A*STAR, whether directly or indirectly, and cease "running [him] down" on my blog. It was impossible to satisfy such vague demands except by taking the entire blog down altogether.

(The AcidFlask press statement published by Steve Mc Dermott; my emphasis)

Singapore Ink has much more and should be read in full. NOTE: Links to further blogosphere discussions will go in this space below as they come in.

update: an angry sounding WhiteOut goes "Cluck Cluck Cluck" | Redrown awaits a statement from the other party

update: Looks like A*Star just gave a press conference (on Friday). CNA has some details in its latest, "A*Star seeks unreserved apology from blogger", by Valerie Tan (May 6). Main points:

- A*Star claims that AcidFlask [now characterised as a "post-graduate student"; nice, a correction without a correction] had made "direct accusations [on his blog] against the agency which were defamatory" in that they "hit at the core of the organisation's integrity".

- It wants AcidFlask "to retract" those accusations "and promise not to do it again". Understandably, A*Star could not comment on the exact nature of those accusations "due to legal constraints".

The last bit is interesting and should be quoted in full:

It said it had given Chen till May 8 [Ed: Two days into AcidFlask's exams] to respond and that it had no desire to go to the courts over the issue. A*Star's Chairman Philip Yeo had also invited Chen for tea to clear the air, and it said the student had responded that he would, when time permits.

I've also heard on the grapevine that some bloggers have also been contacted for interview, so that's something to look out for.

update: Guess what, I must have seen a different version of the latest CNA report. Apparently, there are some words from it missing but quoted at Singapore Ink. Wannabe Lawyer picked up the scent as well and alerted me by email. In a nutshell, the version I read has this line (which I did not bother to quote above):

A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation’s integrity. But it could not comment on what exactly was defamatory due to legal constraints.

The version on Ink has this instead:

A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation’s integrity, such as bribery, misuse of money and misbehaviour.

Ok, not having seen the putative earlier version, I will not be able to vouch for the genuineness of the quote from Ink... but personally, I regret to say that I'm inclined to trust Ink, and I'm sure my readers will understand why.

update: cH has a long and closely reasoned post on libel laws in Singapore and issues with CNA's reporting (1645 May 6 -0400) | Merv discusses the comparative treatments dealt out to CZ and AcidFlask (2028 May 6 -0400) | Otterman rounds up with a "good grief" but gives credit where it is due (2240 hrs May 6 -0400) | Merv considers "some signs that you're in trouble because of your blog" (2210 hrs May 6 -0400)

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]