Defamation...
I read this article last night which again touches on the subject of Freedom of Expression/Speech – only as the Human Rights groups such as Liberty would have us believe. The article is about the summary judgement in the defamation suit against opposition leader Chee Soon Juan (Read the article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229974/1/.html).
The government of Singapore has also been known to use the full force within the legal arsenal to silence and intimidate their political oppositions. Many of Singapore’s prominent opposition politicians have faced court fights at some point with the government or its key members. These usually take the form of defamation suits and contempt of court actions, in which the opposition has never won.
J.B. Jeyaratnam, the first elected opposition Member of Parliament, had paid out damages for libel of more than S$780,000 to former PM Lee. In 1986, he was disqualified from serving in Parliament and from standing as a candidate for five years, after he was convicted of making false statements over party accounts[i]. He was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of S$5,000.
In 1994, Chee Soon Juan was fined S$315,000 for defaming PAP MP S. Vasoo. These were with regards to his comments concerning his dismissal as a lecturer at the National University of Singapore.
More recently, Prime Minister Goh and other PAP leaders hit Workers’ Party member Tang Liang Hong with thirteen suits over comments he had made during the election campaign. Tang fled the country saying that he feared for his life. The High Court of Singapore ordered that Tang declare assets worth S$11.2 Million to cover the damages[ii].
Even the barristers and solicitors who have accepted the responsibility of representing people detained under the ISA have undertaken considerable personal risk. Francis Seow, ex-President of the Singapore Law Society, was himself detained under the ISA for defending several of those who were accused of being part of a Marxist plot to undermine the government[iii]. Partick Seong has been followed, bugged, and harassed by the police and finally detained following his efforts to obtain the release of several ISA detainees[iv]. Jeyaretnam, who represented Tang in court, was also accused of defaming PAP leaders[v].
It seems rather unfortunate that these instances and others like them have become what Singapore is most recognized for internationally. A cursory look at the country profile listed on BBC’s website would be able to show how damaging such things seems to be in the eyes of foreign by-standers (to view the BBC’s Singapore profile go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1143240.stm#facts ).
These instances have also caught the eye of various International Human Rights group such as Amnesty International who reports on all the examples which they regard to be questionable. Those interested to read the information on Amnesty International’s website can go to: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA360052001 and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA360041997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CSINGAPORE
It is submitted, however, that the Singapore government’s use of the law of defamation is again not uncommon among her Western counterparts. In fact the law of defamation operating to protect reputations, is recognised under ECHR Art 10(2) as being a legitimate ground for the restricting of freedom of expression. In the UK, individual politicians and office holders may sue in respect to allegations of corruption or incompetence[vi]. The Defamation Act 1996 s.13 also allows MPs to waive parliamentary privilege to enable them to sue for allegations about the performance of their parliamentary activities[vii]. In 1987, Lord Archer was awarded £500,000 for an allegation in the Daily Star that he had had sex with a prostitute[viii]. Lord Aldington was awarded damages of £1,500,000 against Count Tolstoy Miloslavsky in respect of allegations about the former’s conduct during the World War II[ix].
It is further submitted that perhaps the reason for the Singapore government’s vigour in pursuing legal action against opposition politicians and members the foreign press lies in the fact that it usually involves some allegation of irregularity, impropriety, or even corruption on the part of key figures in the government. This cannot be tolerated especially when one considers the fact that the PAP, by their own admission and through their policies have displayed a close affiliation with Confucian thought - the epitome of this is in Prime Minister Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[x] As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’ who have been entrusted with the welfare of their citizens.
Another further consideration is the government’s attitude towards corruption. While Singapore was a British colony, corruption was rife. It was an accepted way of life. The PAP came into power in 1959[xi] on the promise that it would curb corruption and it set out to deliver. New laws were enacted and existing ones toughened.
In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, explained his government’s commitment to curbing corruption thus:
“When the PAP government took office in 1959, we set out to have a clean administration. We were sickened by the greed, corruption and decadence of many Asian leaders… We had a deep sense of mission to establish a clean and effective government. When we took the oath of office at the ceremony in the city council in June 1959, we all wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolise purity and honesty in our personal behaviour and our public life… We made sure from the day we took office in June 1959 that every dollar in revenue would be properly accounted for and would reach the beneficiaries at the grass roots as one dollar, without being siphoned off along the way.”[xii]
This attitude is applied to political figures and civil servants with equal vigour. According to PERC: “All countries have laws aimed at fighting corruption, but very few governments apply such law as strictly and consistently as Singapore… Corrupt officials, particularly high-ranking ones, are dealt with in Singapore with a severity rarely seen elsewhere.”[xiii] Indeed, the following political leaders and civil servants have been investigated and prosecuted for corruption over the years[xiv]:
Wee Tong Boon, a Minister of State, was investigated in 1975 for accepting bribes from a property developer. He was originally sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, however, this was later reduced to one year and six months.
Phey Yew Kok, a member of Parliament and prominent trade union leader, was investigated in 1979 and charged with criminal breach of trust and other offences. He is now still a fugitive.
Teh Cheang Wan, the then Minister for National Development, was investigated in 1986 for accepting bribes from two property developers. He committed suicide before he could be charged.
Glen Jeyasingam Knight, a senior state counsel and the director of the Commercial Affairs Department, was investigated in 1991 and charged for corruption and cheating. He was jailed and fined.
Yeo Seng Teck, the chief executive officer of the Trade Development Board, was investigated in 1993 and charged with corruption, cheating and forgery. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Choy Hon Tim, the deputy chief executive of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), was investigated in 1995 and charged for accepting bribes from PUB contractors. He was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment.
This continued attitude towards corruption has led to Singapore being ranked the least corrupt country in Asia according to annual surveys conducted by Transparency International and the Hong Kong based PERC from 1995 – 2002. In light of these facts, it is not surprising at all the Singapore government has taken such a hard-line approach towards the audacity or stupidity of those who make what the government considers to be defamatory statement made against them.
-----------------------------------
[i] Ng, R., 1997, Culture and Human Rights: An Empirical Study, final year LLB thesis at the National University of Singapore (obtained at the National University of Singapore’s Law Library), 12-13.
[ii] Ibid., 14.
[iii] Jaudel, E., Assessment of the State of Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore from an International Perspective, A Conference organised by Kehma-s (The European Committee for Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore) and The Rainbow Group, European Parliament, held at the European Parliament (9 & 10 March 1989). This report was obtained from the Central Library at the National University of Singapore.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ng, R., Op Cit., n.i, 14.
[vi] Feldman, D., 2002, Civic Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford, 837.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[xi] In fact, the PAP launched its electoral campaign by revealing that the Labour Front’s Minister for Education, Chew Swee Kee, had corruptly accepted political funds from the United States government to defeat the PAP in the 1959 elections. During the investigation, Chew admitted that he had in fact received, with his party’s knowledge, a total of S$700,000 (or US$233,000) on two occasions from the United States government. This confession effectively sealed his party’s fate and enabled the PAP to win the election.
[xii] Lee, K.Y., 2000, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, Times, 182-184.
[xiii] Quah, J.S.T., 2003, Curbing Corruption in Asia, EUP, 124.
[xiv] Ibid.
I read this article last night which again touches on the subject of Freedom of Expression/Speech – only as the Human Rights groups such as Liberty would have us believe. The article is about the summary judgement in the defamation suit against opposition leader Chee Soon Juan (Read the article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229974/1/.html).
The government of Singapore has also been known to use the full force within the legal arsenal to silence and intimidate their political oppositions. Many of Singapore’s prominent opposition politicians have faced court fights at some point with the government or its key members. These usually take the form of defamation suits and contempt of court actions, in which the opposition has never won.
J.B. Jeyaratnam, the first elected opposition Member of Parliament, had paid out damages for libel of more than S$780,000 to former PM Lee. In 1986, he was disqualified from serving in Parliament and from standing as a candidate for five years, after he was convicted of making false statements over party accounts[i]. He was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of S$5,000.
In 1994, Chee Soon Juan was fined S$315,000 for defaming PAP MP S. Vasoo. These were with regards to his comments concerning his dismissal as a lecturer at the National University of Singapore.
More recently, Prime Minister Goh and other PAP leaders hit Workers’ Party member Tang Liang Hong with thirteen suits over comments he had made during the election campaign. Tang fled the country saying that he feared for his life. The High Court of Singapore ordered that Tang declare assets worth S$11.2 Million to cover the damages[ii].
Even the barristers and solicitors who have accepted the responsibility of representing people detained under the ISA have undertaken considerable personal risk. Francis Seow, ex-President of the Singapore Law Society, was himself detained under the ISA for defending several of those who were accused of being part of a Marxist plot to undermine the government[iii]. Partick Seong has been followed, bugged, and harassed by the police and finally detained following his efforts to obtain the release of several ISA detainees[iv]. Jeyaretnam, who represented Tang in court, was also accused of defaming PAP leaders[v].
It seems rather unfortunate that these instances and others like them have become what Singapore is most recognized for internationally. A cursory look at the country profile listed on BBC’s website would be able to show how damaging such things seems to be in the eyes of foreign by-standers (to view the BBC’s Singapore profile go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1143240.stm#facts ).
These instances have also caught the eye of various International Human Rights group such as Amnesty International who reports on all the examples which they regard to be questionable. Those interested to read the information on Amnesty International’s website can go to: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA360052001 and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA360041997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CSINGAPORE
It is submitted, however, that the Singapore government’s use of the law of defamation is again not uncommon among her Western counterparts. In fact the law of defamation operating to protect reputations, is recognised under ECHR Art 10(2) as being a legitimate ground for the restricting of freedom of expression. In the UK, individual politicians and office holders may sue in respect to allegations of corruption or incompetence[vi]. The Defamation Act 1996 s.13 also allows MPs to waive parliamentary privilege to enable them to sue for allegations about the performance of their parliamentary activities[vii]. In 1987, Lord Archer was awarded £500,000 for an allegation in the Daily Star that he had had sex with a prostitute[viii]. Lord Aldington was awarded damages of £1,500,000 against Count Tolstoy Miloslavsky in respect of allegations about the former’s conduct during the World War II[ix].
It is further submitted that perhaps the reason for the Singapore government’s vigour in pursuing legal action against opposition politicians and members the foreign press lies in the fact that it usually involves some allegation of irregularity, impropriety, or even corruption on the part of key figures in the government. This cannot be tolerated especially when one considers the fact that the PAP, by their own admission and through their policies have displayed a close affiliation with Confucian thought - the epitome of this is in Prime Minister Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[x] As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’ who have been entrusted with the welfare of their citizens.
Another further consideration is the government’s attitude towards corruption. While Singapore was a British colony, corruption was rife. It was an accepted way of life. The PAP came into power in 1959[xi] on the promise that it would curb corruption and it set out to deliver. New laws were enacted and existing ones toughened.
In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, explained his government’s commitment to curbing corruption thus:
“When the PAP government took office in 1959, we set out to have a clean administration. We were sickened by the greed, corruption and decadence of many Asian leaders… We had a deep sense of mission to establish a clean and effective government. When we took the oath of office at the ceremony in the city council in June 1959, we all wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolise purity and honesty in our personal behaviour and our public life… We made sure from the day we took office in June 1959 that every dollar in revenue would be properly accounted for and would reach the beneficiaries at the grass roots as one dollar, without being siphoned off along the way.”[xii]
This attitude is applied to political figures and civil servants with equal vigour. According to PERC: “All countries have laws aimed at fighting corruption, but very few governments apply such law as strictly and consistently as Singapore… Corrupt officials, particularly high-ranking ones, are dealt with in Singapore with a severity rarely seen elsewhere.”[xiii] Indeed, the following political leaders and civil servants have been investigated and prosecuted for corruption over the years[xiv]:
Wee Tong Boon, a Minister of State, was investigated in 1975 for accepting bribes from a property developer. He was originally sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, however, this was later reduced to one year and six months.
Phey Yew Kok, a member of Parliament and prominent trade union leader, was investigated in 1979 and charged with criminal breach of trust and other offences. He is now still a fugitive.
Teh Cheang Wan, the then Minister for National Development, was investigated in 1986 for accepting bribes from two property developers. He committed suicide before he could be charged.
Glen Jeyasingam Knight, a senior state counsel and the director of the Commercial Affairs Department, was investigated in 1991 and charged for corruption and cheating. He was jailed and fined.
Yeo Seng Teck, the chief executive officer of the Trade Development Board, was investigated in 1993 and charged with corruption, cheating and forgery. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Choy Hon Tim, the deputy chief executive of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), was investigated in 1995 and charged for accepting bribes from PUB contractors. He was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment.
This continued attitude towards corruption has led to Singapore being ranked the least corrupt country in Asia according to annual surveys conducted by Transparency International and the Hong Kong based PERC from 1995 – 2002. In light of these facts, it is not surprising at all the Singapore government has taken such a hard-line approach towards the audacity or stupidity of those who make what the government considers to be defamatory statement made against them.
-----------------------------------
[i] Ng, R., 1997, Culture and Human Rights: An Empirical Study, final year LLB thesis at the National University of Singapore (obtained at the National University of Singapore’s Law Library), 12-13.
[ii] Ibid., 14.
[iii] Jaudel, E., Assessment of the State of Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore from an International Perspective, A Conference organised by Kehma-s (The European Committee for Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore) and The Rainbow Group, European Parliament, held at the European Parliament (9 & 10 March 1989). This report was obtained from the Central Library at the National University of Singapore.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ng, R., Op Cit., n.i, 14.
[vi] Feldman, D., 2002, Civic Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford, 837.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[xi] In fact, the PAP launched its electoral campaign by revealing that the Labour Front’s Minister for Education, Chew Swee Kee, had corruptly accepted political funds from the United States government to defeat the PAP in the 1959 elections. During the investigation, Chew admitted that he had in fact received, with his party’s knowledge, a total of S$700,000 (or US$233,000) on two occasions from the United States government. This confession effectively sealed his party’s fate and enabled the PAP to win the election.
[xii] Lee, K.Y., 2000, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, Times, 182-184.
[xiii] Quah, J.S.T., 2003, Curbing Corruption in Asia, EUP, 124.
[xiv] Ibid.
posted by Clem | 1:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home