There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to
slander.
Firstly, do you even know
the difference between ''Fair Comment" and "Slander" - before you
get into deeper waters with your effort to muzzle ''Freedom of
Speech" by attempting to confuse it with "Freedom to Slander"
?
Is there such a thing in any
Civilised World that allow any "Freedom to Slander" ?
Freedom of speech:-
An example was during a parliamentary debate as reported in the
press and watched on News, there was a exchanged between opposition
political party MP Low Tk. He stood up and queried on behalf of his
constituents whether did Mas Selamat died in custody for such were
the rumours that were floated around.
He did the right thing in expressing the freedom of speech. He
was given that
priviledge before the govt, but at the same
time, he qualified that statement that it was only a rumour,
unsubstantiated.
When asked in return by MHA Wong if he believed in the rumour,
he replied in the negative and sat back down, and asked no more,
fully satisfied with the answer.
Was WP LTK
given that
'privilege'
?
Who are you implying is
'giving that privilege' ?
Should this be a privilege given
to WP LTK ?
Did the Singapore Constitution not
guarantee this as a birthright of a Citizen, more so to an
elected Member of Parliament ?
Your statement imply that the
Government has given WP LTK this privilege - and either you are
ignorant of your own Rights as a citizen, or you are here to
convince others that such a Right is now a Privilege.
Do not confuse this basic issue -
as it is important to an already ill defined political space that
has the rules written by a Single Political Party creating every
rule in their own favor and interpreted for their own political
interests.
What kind of reply did WKS give to
WP LTK - except a counter question if LTK believe in that rumour
?
When LTK responded with a negative
head-shake, all WKS did was to say that LTK had his own answer
- with WKS saying nothing more.
Was that an answer from WKS -
or was WKS expecting LTK to transmit LTK's own
conclusion in the negative to his constituents - and be
responsible for
his own conclusion - with regards to the
concerns that MSK is dead in custody ?
Have you not been complaining
about my response to your questions with another of
my question - that was supposed to have made you think
?
This is how freedom of speech should be. Dare to ask
responsibily, but qualify your statement with intelligence and
rationality first. And when given the facts or faced with the
truth, accept it gracefully and back down, do not cause anymore
grandstanding performance.
Is this the way a Minister
respond to a query from a Member of Parliament to an important
issue of public concern ?
Was WP LTK satisfied with the
answer, or was he aware that the PAP dominated Parliament will bear
down on him ?
Has it not been a consistent
oppressive parliamentary display of unbalance power, when the MIW
Majority will weigh down on CST and JBJ during the
1980s - each time when either one persist with their
line of questioning to get a more satisfactory reply from the
MIW Ministers ?
If at all, WP LTK was merely being
considerate in not pressing home an issue that has clearly put the
Minister in a tight spot, and has shown genoristy in not nailing
WKS and embarrass him further.
This is the kind
of reserved politics that Singaporeans will have to
accept from a weak Parliament represented by only two MP
from the Alternative Parties.
Grandstanding performance
?
Why
are the MIW Ministers habitually defensive with
questions posed by the MPs from the Alternative
Parties ?
Are
the MIW Ministers playing politics as they are conscious of the
fact that they have to make a grandstanding performance to put the
other side down, instead of being responsibly
responsive Ministers ?
Only a DeerHunter is consistently
interested in playing to a larger audience.
If you are not a PAP member - are
you then interested in gaining recognition to be invited as one, as
seen by your consistent effort in your Grandstanding
Performance, when you have been continuously shown your arguments
were weak and baseless ?
Freedom to slander.
An example would be CSJ slandering the govt on the alleged
mismanagement of our reserves. He had no facts or even a shred of
evidence to back up his words. Despite the authorities answers, he
still continued to harp on it without any evidence in his
newletters and the internet, causing a division and
rift amongst the People having doubts, losing trust and
confidence with the authorities who had done nothing wrong
except to serve the People faithfully daily. Such actions harm
the social fabric of our society.
Do you know the difference between
''slander" and a "comment"
?
The issues that CSJ brought up
were fair comments on issues of public concerns -
especially in the conduct of the government in managing the
reserves.
Was it not clear as seen in the
disastrous management of our Reserves in the poor investment
decisions - if not in the past - at least in recent
months ?
Are there not any evidences that
have been published in AFP, Reuters, and even in our Straits Times
- concerning the Billion Dollar investments in Shin Corp, UBS
Bank, Meryll Lynch - all of which more experienced investors will
not even touch ?
Is anyone not free to make "Fair
Comment" on these issues that concerns Singaporeans - especially
when these involve money managed by GIC and Temasek - all being
National Surpluses that were transferred from the Finance Ministry
?
Have we not seen the Billion
Dollar investment in Shin Corp now worth ZERO - and all we have is
an EMPTY SHELL ?
Singaporeans have been silenced by
the strong arm of the Police, and threatened by
the uninhibited use of the ISA by this shameless
Government to lock any Singaporean protestors who dare raise
even a squeak in our public areas on issues that concern the
manner in which our Singapore Surplus is being
mis-managed.
In the recent trial of CSJ - in
which MM LKY and PM LHL - sued CSJ, his sister and SDP
for slander based on an article which suggested that" "NKF learnt
their ways of the Government in the manner that NKF treat public
concerns on fidelity issues" - as it was the same methods
adopted by this Government in silencing critics that pushed too
hard to get the Government to be more accountable and
transparent.
This was a COMMENT from CSJ -
which MM LKY had dis-ingeniously created a situation in which
his own interpretation has caused a self-inflicted
slander.
"Slander" would have been the
public statement in court that LKY said of CSJ is a 'psychotic' -
when all that LKY had depended for his remarks were third
party idle and malicious comments from his own "friends"
- who are doctors whom he spoke to but had no opportunity of
examining CSJ directly.
If LKY had simply said that CSJ is
a pyschotic based on his persistent political behaviour in butting
his head in a quixotic way, one would have taken LKY's word as
simply political polemics - or fair comments.
However, LKY was slanderous
in his impetuous manner in naming James Gomez as a liar, and
accusing James Gomez in not being brave enough to take legal
actions against LKY for making this
outrageous remark.
Did LKY over-reach himself, and
perhaps allowed James Gomez to expose LKY's obvious game plan - to
lure an opponent into LKY's own liar to be exterminated
?
is LKY now dabbling with the
likelyhood of turning Singapore into a Stalinist State in which
dissenters are sent to Mental Institutions, with his
experimental play of psychiatric terms in his Court appearance
to deride CSJ ?
Consider the following remarks
from some observers - extracted from
The
Politics of Madness – Dr Wong Wee Nam’
How on earth then could a lay person have the temerity to make
any claim on a medical diagnosis, especially a psychiatric one?
If we can make diagnosis from medical websites, then everyone in
this world would find himself or herself mentally ill.
There are implications in such damaging articles and I do not
know if the writers realize this.
In my opinion, it is all right for one politician to call
another politician mad. I give leeway to political polemics.
However, when writers, who are supposed to be objective and factual
and not combatants in the political arena, take up the hatchet to
demolish someone in this manner, I sigh and ask: As a society and a
nation, where are we heading?
On reading the articles, I recall the use of psychiatry to
suppress political dissent in some countries where, as New York Law
School Professor Michael Perlin an expert on this form of
suppression put it, “a patient’s conviction that the state must be
changed was seen as an indication of mental illness.”
In such places, “If you protest politically, you demonstrate by
that an absence of instinct for self-preservation, or if you pursue
a legal complaint against a corrupted or repressive official,
that’s a sign of mental illness.”
According to Professor Perlin, throwing dissidents into mental
hospitals rather than prisons has three advantages:
(1) It avoids the already limited procedural safeguards of a
criminal trial.
(2) It stigmatizes people to subordinate them, and
(3) It confines dissenters indefinitely at the State’s
discretion.
Fortunately we are not in such a state. So far we have not used
psychiatry as a weapon to intimidate or discredit citizens who
tangle with the authorities. We have not criminalised dissidents or
accused them of suffering from “Reformist delusions”.
“Chief Justice send
remisier to Mental Institute’ - for persistently bugging him to settle an
outstanding debt before he became CJ, and it seems that the
court papers are now sealed / locked-up and inaccessible to
all.
Have we crossed that thin red line
to become a neo-Stalinist State ?
Singapore welcomes freedom of speech and criticism. BUT NO ONE,
not even yourself, would welcome freedom to slander, to lie, to
speak half truths, and get away scot free, using 'freedom of
speech' as an excuse.
Only a thin skinned guilt-ridden
person concious of his/her own wrongs will be sensitive to
criticisms, and will not tolerate such criticism to be perpetuated
that will rock his own power base.
If one is clear of guilt - surely
a false criticism can be simply be exposed for what its true
basis is - pure falsehood.
This Government and the supposed
Elites have consistently depended on the use of its own
Judiciary to slam legitimate criticisms, and wickedly bust the
individuals into bankruptcies so that they and their families are
punished - and made scapegoats for all others to see that those in
Power are not to be trifled with.
So please, do not confuse freedom of speech with freedom to
slander. Politically ambitious figures or anarchists often
do.
It is the Political Autocrats that
draw a thin line between Free Speech and Slander - making almost
every fair comment to be slander, and squashing all
legitimate comments as if there is truly something to be
hidden.
When author Catherine Lim spoke
out on the political perimeters placed by the GCT Government in
late 1990s, SM LKY came charging out and insisted that political
commentaries are the preserve of politicians; and suggested that
politicians who dare to comment will have to be prepared for robust
replies.
Now that we have a politician in
CSJ to challenge the Government, his comments are considered to be
slanderous, yet the onus of proof is not demanded from the
plaintiffs that they have been slandered, and that the defendants
have been made to defend their position.
Has Singapore legal system on
civil suits become an international joke ?
As matters stand, a
concerned Singaporean has already made the following
observation:
Does
that mean that if — heaven forbid — the judiciary really becomes
corrupt and partisan, Singaporeans would be sent to jail if they
question its integrity?
