http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2563
Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation
suits?
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 16, 2009
SINGAPORE – The most ubiquitous case in
which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation
suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid
Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (ASTAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that ASTAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its
scholarship holders into their PhD programs. ASTAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because
this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After
ASTAR resorted to legal action, Mr
Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was
only two years after the incidentthat ASTAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put
up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its
website.
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between ASTAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from
the public. Some felt that ASTAR was
justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against
it. Thus, the pertinent question is – is it worthwhile for
government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit
this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the
origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely
non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies
work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about
speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the
speculations will continue unabated in the face of such
non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking ASTAR as an example, it is known
that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top
research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment
of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance
sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on
ASTAR’s investments on scholarships
and nurturing research talents is not publicly available.
Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that
ASTAR could have paid a certain
amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD
programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical
scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid
Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should
not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in
the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse?
It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move
after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization,
there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One
common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the
mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This
is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may
charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in
favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a
defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful
organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual
may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying
to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is
seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the
organization for taking extreme measures against powerless
individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the
mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations
will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if
faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be
quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives
of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such
bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also
benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices.
Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
—-—-—-—-—-—--
Latest updates at Singapore News Alternatives:
1. Singapore Warns Against Staging Protests During APEC Summit
2. Singapore’s government-backed loans reach record high in
March
3. Singapore steps in to foster media sector
4. Singapore men put love on hold on financial worry
5. Vietnam Wants More Investment From Singapore
6. Capitaland May Increase Its 59% Stake On Australand
7. Qantas Cut Staff, SIA May Follow Suit As
Air Travel Business Worsens
New videos added:
1. Bartaring growing in Singapore
2. Peter Schiff Vlog – 14 Apr 200
.