include("cmp.php");

An Archaic and Repressive Law

Hot on the heels of his vexatious libel suit against innocuous blogger Leong Sze Hian, Lee Hsien Loong is now using the AG to dust off an archaic law and use it against another relatively insignificant opponent.

In the last year the Government has brought in new laws such as the Protection from Online Manipulation and Harassment (POFMA) which has been deployed multiple times by Seatwarmer-in-Waiting Heng Swee Keat to try and intimidate critics into not challenging the Government’s version of the truth, particularly where the Government refuses to release statistics that might dispute that version. It was even corruptly deployed to prevent speculation about the PM’s wife’s salary, after a Taiwanese newsite alleged that she was paid $100 million a year, despite Lawrence Wong having said in Parliament that as Temasek was a private company, what it paid Ho Ching was a private matter.

However, when it comes to repressive laws to use against your opponents , it is often a case that the “oldies” are the “goodies”, as in the use of colonial sedition laws to shut down independent media in the case of The Real Singapore, where a husband and wife were jailed for having dared to try to make money out of being a Government critic. Lee Hsien Loong’s guiding principle, as it was his dad’s, is not only that you should not be able to earn a living if you dare to be even mildly critical of him, but that if possible you should be driven into bankruptcy, as was done with my late father, JBJ.

The latest example of the use of archaic laws is shown in the prosecution for criminal defamation of Terry Xu from The Online Citizen (TOC) and Daniel De Costa whose trial for criminal defamation started this week. Xu published an article purporting to come from another person whose email was used allegedly without permission, a distasteful expedient De Costa was presumably driven to by fear of prosecution under Singapore’s repressive laws. The phrase from the article in question is we have seen multiple policy and foreign screw-ups, tampering of the Constitution, corruption at the highest echelons and apparent lack of respect from foreign powers ever since the demise of founding father Lee Kuan Yew”.

The AG is arguing that “corruption at the highest levels” refers to the Cabinet. This is not at all clear to me and surely not to any reasonable observer, the hypothetical “man on the Clapham omnibus” or in Singapore’s case, the person on the North-South line. We have seen several high profile corruption cases involving senior civil servants and also the prosecution by the US of several employees of Temasek-controlled companies (Keppel Corp and Sembawang Marine) for offences under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Also no one is specifically mentioned in the phrase and therefore, following the precedent established by Rex v Orme and Nutt, “where a writing … inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel.”

In any case Singapore’s criminal defamation laws, like its anti-male homosexaulity law (Section 377A) and its provision of corporal punishment for men, derive from the Indian Penal Code of 1860, written by the colonizers, and long since abolished or reformed both in the UK and most of its former colonies. They have no place in a democracy.  The organisation Article 19 ( after the eponymous provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” ) says:

International bodies such as the UN and the OSCE have recognised the threat posed by criminal defamation laws and have recommended that they should be abolished. For example, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has called for the abolition of all laws that provide criminal penalties for the defamation of public figures or which penalise defamation of the state or state organs. The UN, OSCE and OAS Special Mandates have gone even further, stating: “Criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws.”

Article 19 also quotes a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Castell v Spain:

[T]he dominant position which the Government occupies makes it necessary for it to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the unjustified attacks and criticisms of its adversaries or the media.

This is a similar position to the ruling by the English courts in the case of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers that government bodies do not have the right to sue for defamation, though individual officers can sue. The Cabinet is of course the government, since it consists of the highest ranking ministers headed by the Prime Minister. It should therefore not be able to sue for defamation as a civil tort. Criminal defamation is in any case not an offence in the UK and in the overwhelming majority of democratic countries. Even where it exists Article 19 state that the following safeguards should apply:

  1. No-one should be convicted for criminal defamation unless the party claiming to be defamed proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of all the elements of the offence, as set out below;
  2. The offence of criminal defamation shall not be made out unless it has been proven that the impugned statements are false, that they were made with actual knowledge of falsity, or recklessness as to whether or not they were false, and that they were made with a specific intention to cause harm to the party claiming to be defamed;
  3. Public authorities, including police and public prosecutors, should take no part in the initiation or prosecution of criminal defamation cases, regardless of the status of the party claiming to have been defamed, even if he or she is a senior public official;
  4. Prison sentences, suspended prison sentences, suspension of the right to express oneself through any particular form of media, or to practise journalism or any other profession, excessive fines and other harsh criminal penalties should never be available as a sanction for breach of defamation laws, no matter how egregious or blatant the defamatory statement.

This malicious prosecution violates points 3 and 4 above. The coercive machinery of the state is being used to silence critics of the Government. Singapore’s penal code provides for up to two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both for anyone convicted of the criminal offence of defamation.

Far from dispelling allegations of corruption this use of the AG for private ends by the PM and his Cabinet is inherently corrupt.  The PM is using the archaic and repressive law of criminal defamation and new inventions like POFMA to silence critics. If by doing so he is able to continue in office drawing at least $2.2 million p.a. while his wife, whom he appointed as head of Temasek, continues to be paid a secret salary that the Government has failed to deny could be as much as $100 million p.a., then he has abused state power for his own personal profit. I remember my dear father JBJ was fond of this quotation from John Locke, the English philosopher, “When Political Power Is Used for Private Gain, Tyranny Prevails”. This remains even more true today than it did when he was alive.

 

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

* The author blogs at https://kenjeyaretnam.com/

 

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

11 Responses to “An Archaic and Repressive Law”

  • PAP CLOSE DOWN:

    Spore not a sinatory to the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Is it true?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TUMASIK Patriot:

    Well Ken your Dad’ gone and so is his one is UP the other is DOWN…you are well and he is Fried Dry with Chemo…and if the Owl does not call and the demons DRAG he will live a Life of Misery…so Ken Be Happy!!! Live Life and NOT let Life be and EVIL to LIVE with…”Evil is the reverse of LIVE!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    There is no ORDERLY law,only destructive practices here.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    Kenneth.

    This is $G. A repressed, oppressed, ballsless citizenry living under a totalitarian regime that would make the late Chairman Mao green with envy. That much should be clear by now.

    The locals are only too happy to be beaten to a pulp economically, socially and mentally while waiting for the next 5 million FT to come here and make their dreams come true.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Taiwan shutdown media:

    Dear KJ,
    Yawn, So long winded, go win a seat first before you shoot off your mouth.

    To all Ang Mo Tua Kee like Roy who got high praise of Taiwan democracy.

    President Tsai of Democratic Progressive Party is now pushing for the shut down of media who are critical of her government.

    Facts check :
    民進黨昔爭取言論自由今關新聞台?
    Loosely translated :
    Past: DPP fought/demand for freedom of speech, today it wants to curb it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F58lzXlBEjU&app=desktop

    Where are all the Ang Mo Tua Kee poke backside democracy supporters here?
    Come and debate.

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.Again
    $PAP$ Tua Kee; Majullah $PAP$; $PAP$ Huat$ Huat$ Huat$
    Singaporeans must be Cheaper, Better, Faster.
    Workers must accept wage sacrifices to keep businesses going.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @ KJ:

    Care to say a few words on Amos Yee ?
    Whats your response ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    TEMASEK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY? Who is/are its shareholder?shareholders?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Repost

    People should also categorically reject Minister’s Shanmugam’s apparent hint the Justice Chan Seng Onn’s judgment was somehow deficient, when the CJ had found that that is a prima facie case of refering the 2 DPPs to a Disciplinary Tribunal in accordance to the application by Parti Liyani……..that the DPPs had “misled” the court.

    Minister Shanmugam’s Parliament statement also, as far as I know, failed to observe that the District Judge Olivia Low had refused to accept expert testimonies about the true worth (or the lack of value)of those “FAKE” items …….some of which had been described as “door gifts”. She also failed, apparently, to take into account the untruthfulness of the complainants of Liyani’s supposed theft especially Liew Mun Leong’s son, Karl who is now being charged for LYING in court. Surely Olivia Low, who, according to what Harpreet Singh Nehal in the Straits Times commentary, resumed her duties in the AGC immediately after sentencing Liyani, had breached her oath of office under the State Courts Act and who herself, should be the subject of judicial sanctions to preserve the integrity of the judicial system. As Assoc Professor Eugene Tan had stated in the TODAY commentary, the issue of travesty of justice must also be addressed…….which Minister Shanmugam seem only trying to deflect blame to the lapse by the Police.

    Which is why there ought to be an INDEPENDENT Commission of Inquiry to FULLY get behind ALL the FACTS and the relevant laws to examine if the doubts about the integrity and independence of the judiciary is the REALITY in Singapore or otherwise especially in the context of PM Lee Hsien Loong’s PUBLIC pronouncement of how he could “FIX” his critics and opponents and to “BUY” his supporters’ votes. Surely Liew Mun Leong could be counted as an important/influential supporter of PM Lee. Which would not be surprising when the CEO of Temasek International, Dilhan Pillay who himself is a senior lawyer before his appointment at TH, said to allow Liew Mun Leong a chance to present his side of the story………which Liew had or should have done so during the trial and also in Liyani’s appeal hearing.

    All I want to say to sinkies like Simon Lim is SHAME ON YOU.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sinful nation:

    Anyone seated in the pinnacle of power dictates the course and conduct of the nation. He is the Head, your Lord your God(whose will shall be done) and you the body of the anointed by which he rules the nation.

    This is the law of the land and there can never be justice for those who can’t afford justice or willing to pay for costly and cumbersome justice hence lawlessness in the land.

    Only a tiny handful have been spotlighted for being lucky to have stumbled upon justice like the maid against her high flying former boss.

    Your incessant criticism of the governmental controlled judiciary system will only highlight the problem but you can’t solve it like most people.

    Salvation is only one way, one truth and one life.

    Till you acknowledge that or you die/ destruction(or following generations die.

    The nation continues to sink if you don’t repent.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    I hv said this several times b4, and I repeat it again.

    Whether it is archaic, repressive or otherwise, the ONLY consideration should have been: How do those archaic, repressive LAWS and the ABUSE OF POWER, as alleged by the siblings of the emperor without clothes, benefit or otherwise result in Singapore becoming SINKAPOOR with the resulting MULTI-BILLION DOLLARS losses suffered by Temasek Holdings and GIC.

    The LOSSES – both paper and REALISED – far exceeded what Ho Ching is reportedly/allegedly had been paid…….

    It is well past the time just ranting and whining about the “archaic and repressive” laws………it is way past the time to WORK TOGETHER to rid SINKaPOOR of the ROOT CAUSE of our COMMON problems being faced by ALL sinkies. And to those who got the gall to talk about others being “BALLESS” or put the blame on the 61.23%, YOU people should state very clearly what YOU have contributed to getting rid of whatever is/are the ROOT CAUSE/S of the problems we faced………I have already said highlighted the failures and my justification using the description, EMPEROR WITHOUT CLOTHES.

    What have YOU ranters and whiners done?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Against the tyranny of men....:

    “The greatest jihad (striving for a cause) is to battle your own soul and to fight the evil within yourself…. God does not look at your forms and your possessions; the Lord looks into your hearts and at your actions….. Happy is the man who escapes hardship, but how fine is that man who is afflicted yet manifests perseverance. Strive always to excel in virtue and truth.”

    Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1