This is the only time that i will post here, since i see no point in dealing with this agency directly. It is a waste of my time. You want to waste yours, and your ppl, pls carry on. For the 1st and last time, i cannot remove the post here. It's not for me to decide. You cannot shoot your foot, and expect me to clear the mess for u. In order to get you off my back, I've removed more or less everything.

O yah, and thanks for hand-delivering the bill of 110k to me, and devoting a section to this on your website

If you can extend friendship to someone who sees you as an enemy, I think you deserve respect. There is no need to care what others may say.

A lot of times in life, it is difficult to accept friendship because of ego. However, I think it is even harder (almost impossible) to extend friendship to someone who sees you as an enemy...

Then jkaiser is to be commended for trying to extend an olive branch to the unreasonable and immature agency.

I wonder if a certain legal student here is really a law student, or just using such a pseudonym to stir up some more trouble.

Most probably the latter! Which really speaks volumes about the maturity level of the concerned tuition agency, or rather, the person behind it.

*Btw, the comment from jseng exposing the multiple comments was really hilarious.*

Maybe the tuition agency pays me to come here see see... look look... write write ... first, then sue sue ... later. ;-)

But I hate the fact that Free Speech has been sacrificed. Darn!

Lawyer where got time to talk cock here ?

Ex-lawyer graduate students, on the other hand, are damn free and prefer to provide their views on this issue as opposed to, say, shaking leg. :D

Shouldn't be mistaken for legal advice of course. Ex-lawyer graduate students no longer have the licence to practice law in Singapore.

Ex-lawyer grad students?

They can still give legal advice.

Not if they don't currently hold a license to practice law. Singapore is pretty sticky that way.

When I saw the offending page - in fact 2/3 pages, it was like looking at a can of worms. The tuition agency does seem to have a valid case. But I'm no lawyer :-)

So he said something that he should not have said ? Wah ! Drama lei.

News! news ! news ! J has password-protected it. You can't see it now. Just hope that the storm has blown over for J and that agency will be forgiving.

As taken off J's site :
# All comments are moderated, unless u have a comment that’s approved previously
# Some posts, present n future would be passworded..passwords would be made known to selected ppl upon request

There goes Free Speech too.

Yes, it's so sad that the psychotic tuition agency tried to bill him for $810,000, causing the withdrawal of the post.

OMG ... the situation could have been tabloid stuffs.

My ASSUMPTION 1 - current roles

j said : f**k u !
agency : why ?
j again : f**k u !
agency : let us explain
j again : f**k u !

My ASSUMPTION 2 - reversing the roles

agency said : f**k u !
j : ka ni nabei
agency again : f**k off !
j : where r u ? u watch out !
Wan Bao newspaper : half-naked man found with balls chopped off.

The key is "where his site links to". Anyway, my eyesight is perfect. Me no law student. Don't get me into trouble :-)

I went to the blog concerned. I must say it's defamatory. In the court of law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the same vein, as a site owner, jk is reponsible for his site contents including where his site links to. Gone case.

if you want to pretend to be a lawyer, at least remember to change your IP address before switching your identity from "From The Tuition Agency" to "a_legal_student".

and please stop talking to yourself using other identity like 'oleh oleh'. You are just being silly.

Excuse me, I don't like this law. In the coming GE I want to vote for people who will be able to hear me and argue for its change. I hope you enjoy your future 30k a year job, competing with FTs next time..hahahaha.

Pretty much confirms why you're still a law student and not a lawyer ;)

If you verbally abuse a civil servant, I think lagi worse. Actually, I thought agency and tutors work hand-in-hand, hence why should there be the need for the use of vulgarities ? *puzzled*

I say let justice take its course.

We don't know what exactly transpired between jkaiser and the agency so we can't verify the accounts from both sides.

If either party thinks he can't get the clarification he needs, amicably, tapping on the legal system may be necessary.

For one count, the courts here, seldom/never endorse any situation that warants use of vulgarity.

Maybe the host should just remove this thread.

To the one claiming to be the tuition agency: Shut up.

To jk: Please accept our apologies!

To the rest of you: Sorry we have been stupid. Please forget the whole matter.

Assuming that jk has defamed that agency, then the more the number of websites that link to his blog, the more it is not to his advantage.

It's not obvious does not mean that other people do not or may not know about the agency by navigating through some other links via the Internet. We were merely trying to refute the 6 points that jkaiser mentioned here.

Oh, and as a seperate note to the tuition agency,

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

Hang on.

First of all, I've seen nothing to indicate that the Tuition Agency here is indeed the one that JKaiser has identified. In fact, I've seen nothing to indicate that JKaiser has singled out any tuition agency in particular.

Secondly, if you're arguing it's obvious which tuition agency JKaiser has defamed, I'm also fairly sure there is more than one tuition agency with bad service and/or gives ridiculous replies. It's not obvious to me, and I'm fairly sure it's not obvious to people who read his blog without knowing who JKaiser really is.

I'm also fairly sure the law does not punish a commentator when the target of his comments commits, in essence, a "此地无银三百两".

It's been a while since I've had to look at Singapore defamation law, and I defer to more learned legal scholars. I'm curious to know myself.

Ok, I confess I don’t really know what’s going on, but I think enough is enough. Jkaiser might have been rude, but it really does sound like the tuition agency is trying to smear his reputation and bully him into action. How can you threaten to make someone pay exorbitant amount of money just to have your way? And I don’t think very much of any agency who would act as referees to anyone as long as they paid. How then, can we guarantee the standard of such services? To me, people who utter vulgar language display immaturity. To choose threats and bullying to deal with such immaturity just go to show that the receiver is just not magnanimous enough, and is far more immature. By suing jkaiser, this just brings the entire case into nation-wide attention, which I believe, will be far more detrimental to the tuition agency than to jkaiser. Just forgive and forget; it makes the world a better place to live in.

Forgive and forget ? Didn't we try to do that ?

We ate humble pie and offered friendship to him when we first discovered the blog, but he turned us down.

In fact, we didn't even know who he said he was because (as he had confessed on his blogs) he had not blushed his teeth yet which probably explained why his diction was not clear to us. After he hurled abuse at us the first time, he took the trouble to play back our phone recording to try to make out who he said he was. When we called him back again, he hurled vulgarities at us again. Kindly note that he had called me at 11pm the night before but I didn't even complain a word at all about his call to me at such a late hour. We are all very upset about this - what's the big fuss over something so simple which justified his vulgarities and hatred for so long.

By pursuing the actions you are now, you're making it obvious why the hatred has lasted so long.

One somehow hopes that you guys aren't teaching English.

I hope so too

Yah man, where got Singapolian talk until like that one. So shame shame. Like that how our foreign talent understand us? How to ask them to balak kampung this way if they catch no ball when we speak?

Yah lor, we Singapolian how come tok like dat. I have no prob understooding u.

Yah, you go coffee shop talk cock is one thing, but teaching English is another wat. As for other subjects nobody's going to complain if you use Hokkien to explain integration by parts.

Talk cock can come here. Or come here one are all talking cock ? But if they use Hokkien to explain intergration by parts, that's not easy. You may have to give them credits if the student tops the cohort. But wait... who's doing the teaching : the agency or the tutor. I blur liao.

Use Hokkien OK wat. Like that feh- lah- dey erectro- magnetic induction, or whether you use your right hand or your left hand to screw. Or if you use the right hand rule then the third finger means something different.

Still remember my air level shit.

It's true the agent is not doing the teaching. But you got this clown here barely coherent, it's not good advertising also what. Sometimes you got to think carefully before you open that mouth. If you defame yourself who're you going to sue?

I have a middle finger rule that I am trying to get into the sex education textbooks. It can also be used for moral education. If I defame myself, I will stick my middle finger in there too. Don't like this whole defame thingy.

As I understand it, people who defame themselves tend to be those who stick the middle fingers up their asses, forget about it and leave it there.

You are trolling this thread under different names? Shame on you!

Just to add that I teach English - Singaporean style. My students' results fly.

Yeah. But in which direction?

In the direction towards blogosphere. My student is now a blogger.

I dont see how it benefits the agency to go ahead with a defamation suit thats just going to generate bad publicity and ill sentiment towards it. only party who could benefit from such an action would be the lawyers who get paid

In fact, the rest of his points (4 to 6) are either his own ASSUMPTIONS or blatantly untrue. If I am like him, I'm sure I can also ENDLESSLY blog about ASSUMPTIONS which was likely what happened to him.

The 2 letters that our company sent him was not what he claimed to be "barely-veiled threats". We didn't threaten him.

But he's forcing us to take the path of no return by being stubborn all because of his own ASSUMPTIONS.

Surely, blogging is not like that, right ?

If I can overturn all his points 1-6 easily, how can he stand any chance in a court of law ?

the ground for defamation is when someone suffer loses or damages (including reputation or emotion) due to some statements made regardless whether it is truthful or not. statement of fact may be used to defend against defamatory lawsuit but falsehood is not a ground for defamation. more importantly, logical follows you dont suffer (a lot of) loses when no one else know the tutition agency involved.

a meta-question, fact or fiction, is not defamatory. At worst it is just misrepresentation of the events that occurs but wont make the meta-question more or less valid.

you may want to speak to a lawyer first before you make assumption what will stand in court of law or not.

We have spoken with our lawyer. It is defamatory. My advise is : call jkaiser.