[kelnos]

I very much believe that intent matters, and should matter, but the problem with intent in a legal setting is that often it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and the defendant just has to say "I never intended it to mean that; I was thinking $INNOCENT_THING when I said it" to inject some doubt into the proceedings, often enough doubt to avoid a guilty verdict.

[perennate]

I agree that there needs to be a balance. I'd argue that US defamation law is close to the "right" balance, by making a stronger case needed to prosecute defamation against public figures (like public officials or celebrities), and by focusing not exactly on intention but on whether the defendant within reason could have believed the statement was true.

[marcus_holmes]

Singapore is a different culture, and they see public figures differently.

Being disrespectful to your boss, and those higher up the authority chain, is a strong cultural taboo. Authority is respected. It's complicated for us Westerners to understand, and totally goes against how we view the world and our place in it. But that's the culture, and changing it because it doesn't agree with ours would be wrong.

So yes, the US defamation law is right for the US. It's probably not right for Singapore. I'm not sure Singapore's actual law is "right" - this article and the popular support for the defendant in this case shows it may not be. But that doesn't mean they would be better off with the US version.