The link for the full article is available at: http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090615-148560.html

Summary of the article:
This article mentions there there has been an increase in the number of people seeking legal advice on online defamation. A court may rule that a remark is defamatory if it is untrue, malicious, or injures another's reputation. Under Singapore's defamation laws, an apology will only go towards reducing damages that a defamed person can claim. In this article, it gives an example of an IT entrepreneur who seeks legal advice against a author who defamed he online on a IT forum using words such as "failure", that his "services were no good", and that he "cheated people". The lawyer manage to track down the author of the post and the author was asked to delete the comment immediately.

Ethical Qn:
I think a question I will like to raise is whose right should we consider, the author who made the posting or the IT consultant who was defamed. One might argue that the author has the right to post what he felt or share his experience on the forum. Another one might argue that the IT consultant has the right to be protected against online defamation.

Ethical Problem:
A lawyer interviewed in this article mentions that "Netizens need to know that the same legal rules apply offline as they do online". I felt that this statement has to be look into because the conditions between an online or offline defamation is different. In online defamation, the author experience anonymity and thus he/she might feel a lower sense of inhibition. Furthermore, he/she could not see the impact of his/her defamed action on the other party. This is different from offline defamation. Thus, I felt this two has to be viewed separately.