Political
defamation
David vs Goliath
Necessary laws of course, but if excessively done can backfire with
long-term negative impact for 21st Century Singapore. By Seah
Chiang Nee.
Jun 7, 2008
"BETWEEN being loved and being feared, I have always believed
Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless,”
said Lee Kuan Yew on Oct 6, 1997.
Today, in a changed Singapore, the Minister Mentor has not lost
sight of this tough maxim to instil fear in his political foes when
he feels threatened or if his integrity is
impugned.
Yet again, the 84-year-old founding leader last week resorted to
the republic’s controversial defamation (and libel) laws – among
the developed world’s harshest – against an outspoken
activist.
On the receiving end – one more time – was Dr Chee Soon Juan,
secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, who is already
a bankrupt following an unpaid S$400,000 libel award in
2001.
The US-trained neuro-psychologist is a relative political
non-entity, who is not regarded as a threat to the powerful
Minister Mentor or his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong.
(In the 2006 election, Chee’s only team battled hard but won only
20% of the votes, the worst of the opposition
showings.)
That the towering Lee decided to move against a political small fry
and risk his own stature surprised many
Singaporeans.
Referring to troublemakers four years ago, Lee had said: “If we
considered them serious political figures we would not have kept
them politically alive for so long. We could have made them
bankrupt earlier.”
What was more amazing is that he and the Prime Minister had agreed
to be grilled by Chee in open court, which the latter made much
capital of.
Last week’s hearing was to decide damages since defamation had
already been summarily decided.
During the confrontation, which was played down by the mainstream
media, Chee fired a series of embarrassing questions that were cut
off by Lee’s counsel as “irrelevant”.
Dr Chee may be hit by punitive damages. But in the court of public
opinion, neither side came out winners.
The opposition leader, however, has emerged with an improved
standing among Singaporeans who hanker for a stronger opposition.
Coffeeshop critics talk of “bullying”.
A number of people who had long disliked his loud method of street
confrontations say they now understand him better. Websites had
carried his emotional court statement.
“After so many years of watching how Dr Chee has been treated, my
hatred for him has turned into empathy,” said one online message.
“Now, I simply hope that Singapore would be able to have more of
him.”
The majority of conservative Singaporeans, however, still keep the
trust for their leaders and regard Dr Chee’s political manners with
some disdain.
But in many ways, this defamation action has been a catalyst of
sorts. For one thing, it is different from the past when the public
also had a lop-sided view of the proceedings from the
pro-government media.
This time, however, the Internet carried transcripts of the court
exchanges and the opposition views that were ignored by the press
as well as statements from Dr Chee’s party. They offered a more
balanced picture.
What followed was an online buzz with some people saying the
frequent use of the court to bankrupt politicians has a wider
impact on society.
It is one reason why so many Singaporeans with talent had migrated
to “freer” countries, said Bernise Ang.
A writer, identified only as Bender, said Lee’s action had
indirectly bred “a culture of defamation” here among Singaporeans
to resort to suing each other at the slightest
reason.
“It favours the rich and powerful since the poor – even if they’re
right – cannot afford lawyers,” said another
critic.
More importantly, it raised the question whether Lee’s longstanding
use of defamation (or libel) laws really serves the nation’s
long-term interests.
Between 1979 and 2005, his government had instituted 17 such cases
against opposition figures – all of them successfully – in
Singapore courts, according to records.
The awards totalled some S$6.9mil and the amounts had been steadily
creeping upwards over the past 15 years.
They do not include libel cases against the foreign media nor those
against politicians, which were settled out of
court.
Lee has said that these laws and their strict implementation are
important to protect the integrity of the government, its leaders
and the system, and to maintain stability.
Whatever the benefits, the culture of suing people has a big
negative. It may have also created a largely compliant population,
which is too fearful to discuss, let alone take part in,
politics.
“When a person can be charged for defamation just for saying that
joining the ruling People’s Action Party is the best career move,
who wants to stand for election and risk bankruptcy?” asked a
critic.
Opposition parties usually fail to field enough candidates to stand
for even half the contested seats in Singapore’s
elections.
The result is a democracy in which half the voters play no part. In
some areas, some have lived for decades without casting a vote, an
ideal scenario to breed apathy.
The ruling party attributes this to a weak opposition but part of
the reason is a fear of being sued for making a marginal comment.
Few are prepared to spend so much money on a
defence.
There are many moderate voices to support Lee to say that the
existence of defamation laws are crucial to safeguard the rights of
individuals from being maligned or slandered.
But they say these should be used only against malicious and
reckless accusers, not in marginal instances.
“Our
leaders urge people to speak up. They should walk the talk if they
really want the people to grow,” said ‘Witness’
online.
Reference: ‘‘Political Defamation – David vs Goliath’’
- from www.littlespeck.com
