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, littlespeck.com.
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.
our leaders always like to claim that we're now first world
nation but their behaviour show that they have yet to step over the
threshold of a 3rd world nation.