« Singapore: End Efforts to Silence Opposition | HomePage | Defamation suits necessary, Singapore tells rights group »
18/10/2008
Defamation suits necessary, Singapore tells rights group
Listen to this article
SINGAPORE (AFP) — Singapore's government has defended itself against a charge of using defamation suits to stifle dissent, saying they are necessary for protection against unfounded allegations by political opponents.
Human Rights Watch on Friday urged Singapore's leaders to stop using libel suits to silence its critics after an opposition party was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
"In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame," said information ministry spokeswoman K. Bhavani late Friday.
"If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true."
A judge this month ordered the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its bankrupt secretary general Chee Soon Juan and his sister, a party member, to pay 610,000 dollars (413,000 US) for defaming the country's leaders.
Human Rights Watch said using defamation laws against critics "makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy."
09:45 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: singapore, defamation
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1632770
Comments
it is fair enough to say that "right to criticize" does not include lies and defamation, and those defamed are entitled to sue to clear their reputation; however, this might be achieved without obtaining large settlements (with donation to charity to show that the plaintiff does not have a monetary motive) - a symbolic payment may be sufficient to show that the court agrees with the plaintiff
getting large settlments is a deliberate policy to (a) establish the plaintiff's high reputation which is essential for fulfilling his/her role in government; and (b) reduce the effectiveness of the defendant in future activities; in fact LKY advised HK to adopt the same method, though I recall the HK opposition leader Martin Lee did not see this as a threat as he felt the HK legal system was different.
Posted by: yuen | 18/10/2008
It's all about power, folks.
S'pore's leaders routinely sue people who "defame" the leadership. However the leadership themselves are unrestrained in their use of "defamatory" language when referring to political opponents. Check the public record. LKY will call use the word "liar" to describe an opponent, then challenge that opponent to sue him.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 20/10/2008
Instead of the recent cases, I prefer to recall something from the 1984 election: LKY got very upset when some opposition guys said "you dont really own your HDB flats; they are on 99 year lease"; as a political campaign speech, this is weird - you want me to vote for you, and if you get elected, I would own my HDB flats? but as a way of annoying LKY, it obviously worked.
It is unfortunate that opposition-government dialogue has been at that kind of level for as long as I remember, and I lived here since 1983
BTW, something like this was revived in one of the letters CSJ wrote to ST in 1991, but Mathias Yao pointed to the new phenomenon of HDB resale market with some owners getting very high capital gains; this sort of settled of issue of whether you "own" your HDB flat
Posted by: yuen | 20/10/2008
IMO LKY can't take criticism, is quick to anger — not hesitating to use his absolute powers to "each someone a lesson", and bears grudges. (note his comments on Malaysia over the years).
He's akin to a teenage gang-banger, armed with awesome illegal fire-power, and drunk with power as if he was on PCP.
Freedom of speech is ok for His High-and-Mighty, but not for anyone else. Gary Rodan of Murdoch University, Western Australia has identified this foible and mentioned it in his public lecturers.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 21/10/2008
not so simple; William Safire's attack on him and LHL was worse, but LKY was willing to hold a public dialog with Safire during a later visit to USA
as I read the situation: you have to be "somebody" qualified to criticize him first; harvard professors, CEOs of large multinationals, NYTimes columnist (who used to be Nixon's speech writer), for example, are qualified as "somebodies"
Posted by: yuen | 21/10/2008
Everybody is a "somebody".
Furthermore, everyone has a different take on the world and existence, and even though one does not have a fancy over-priced Ivy League qualification, or a notable reputation, one has the right to express one's thoughts as "offensive" as that might be to certain people or groups.
Once upon a time, a small boy (of the "peasant class" and thus probably "uneducated") exercised his right — his freedom of speech and expression — to remind people that the emperor was naked... to quote an example. He didn't use force, he didn't ram his views down anyone's throats. He simply shared his world-view.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 22/10/2008
Correction:
> one has the right to express one's thoughts as "offensive" as that might be to certain people or groups. <
Corrected:
one has the right to express one's thoughts (the stuff in your mind, which you own) even though the manifested (in speech, writing, the arts, music etc) might be * taken to be * "offensive" to certain people or groups.
For example, laws PROTECTING freedom of speech has protected the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and the PRIVATE PROPERTY of artists like Robert Mapplethorpe (homoeroticism, eating feces) , Damien Hirst (Two Fucking, Two Watching), Andres Serrano (Piss Christ), and comedians like Lenny Bruce (declared "innocent" posthumously), Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison and George Carlin. All these folks are/were blatantly and patently offensive. Power to them :)
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 22/10/2008