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.

(This was first published in The Star on June 7, 2008)