TR EMERITUS

By David Wu, Guest Columnist 'What is Singapore's national costume?' I could not think of a satisfactory answer to my friend's question, since there are so many types of dress that Singaporeans can identify with. Then came the perhaps unsurprising answer: 'The defamation suit of course!' Chee Soon Juan, the self-termed Singapore rebel, is probably the synonym for the defamation action in modern day Singapore. While I am not going to proceed to discuss the merits of his pursuits, I will put forth a case why ignoring his often exaggerated remarks may be the better solution. If you seek the advice of any lawyer, he would probably advise you that a pauper like Chee is not worth suing. He is already bankrupt and is therefore not afraid of any additional sanction that seeks to deprive him of his possessions. What he would probably fear losing, I would think, is exactly what these defamation suits give him: the attention of the public. The media coverage on Chee has always been focused on his brushes with the law, and thus inadvertently bringing attention to his cause and beliefs. While the man may believe himself to be a martyr, it is difficult to connect his position with someone like Gandhi or Aung San Suu Kyi, since not many would pay attention to his preachings if he was left alone. The only similarity between them is perhaps that they were all subject to government prosecution, something that arguably is Chee's presently most valuable possession. Chee ingeniously uses the courtroom as his soapbox, and his portal to influence public opinion. It is therefore not a surprise that he commits the offence of defamation over and over again, to the extent that some may think he actually enjoys it. In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the British government banned a book called the Spycatcher, written by an ex-MI5 agent Peter Wright, in which he made bold claims about the misdoings of the government. The book itself might not have gotten much readership if left alone, and the few who did read it might not have believed its contents. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm the authorities showed to prevent the book from being published made everyone curious about what they wanted to hide. The book went on to become an international best-seller, published in every other country but the United Kingdom. If the defamation suits did any good besides depriving Chee of his materialistic possessions, it would have been the fact that doubts are raised in the public mind about the veracity of his claims. Why would the government pay so much attention to silencing him if it was just baseless nonsense? It is human nature to be curious about what we are prevented from knowing, even when most of the time we would admit that if we knew in the first place we probably wouldn't have bothered to find out. Moreover, the government's attempts to silence Chee merely made him a fighter for the freedom of speech in the eyes of Western media. The American philosopher Thomas Scanlon believed that an essential part of a democracy is that citizens should be given the autonomy to receive information freely and evaluate its truth for themselves. Although most of us would agree that it is necessary for the government to protect society from dangerous racist hate speech or the promotion of terrorism, we would also agree that the public is capable to make the correct judgement in Chee's case. The times have changed since the threat of Communist sedition and the significant improvement in education standards means that the majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to distinguish truth from falsity, especially in unsubstantiated claims such as Chee's. Even if a minority of people believed these allegations, the importance of the right to the freedom of expression means that we should allow speech, especially when even more people might have believed it to be true if it was suppressed through prosecution. The free 'marketplace of ideas', as it is suggested in the United States, would mean that only the truth would emerge unscathed through the scrutiny of public opinion. The truth is naked, and it requires no additional help from the authorities. The Singapore government has often been criticised for being a nanny-state, and I believe that the populace has now matured enough to be not easily swayed by the boisterous claims of a demagogue. Looking from the point of the defamed politicians, it is true that their reputations have been attacked. Nonetheless, the fact that they willingly entered into the public eye when they decided to run for office should mean a greater tolerance towards such accusations, and the willingness to put themselves up for public scrutiny to clarify matters. Moreover, even if only the false statements were censored, such liability to prosecution would have a 'chilling effect' on important investigative journalism or other constructive criticisms towards those in power. Such restraints against free speech would only be viewed as undemocratic, as were the Napoleonic laws prohibiting the criticism of government officials. John Stuart Mill has argued powerfully that the government should not have an 'assumption of infallibility' and allow criticisms on its policies, since they 'ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth'. The ability of the Singapore government is evident in its good governance and recognised throughout the world. Politicians should therefore not prevent accusations that are clearly not true, but rather to clarify these false claims to make their reputations even stronger. It is often that a sore-loser accuses the winner of cheating, but the true champion always chooses to take such allegations in his stride.  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo I read with amusement this letter written by Mr Peter Ho, Head of the Civil Service purportedly to Singaporeans which was published in the Straits Times Forum today. Mr Ho wrote: " Mr Tan has apologised to me, acknowledging that his article was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans." May I ask Mr Ho his purpose of writing the letter ? Is he apologizing to Singaporeans on behalf of Mr Tan or is he simply conveying the message to Singaporeans that Mr Tan is remorseful for his ill-timed article ? Since Mr Tan has realized his mistake, why wasn't the letter written by him instead ? Is Mr Ho trying to tell us indirectly that Mr Tan lack the language ability to draft a simple letter of apology ? Is this just another ruse to defray rising disgruntlement and anger on the ground towards bloated salaries received by the upper echelons of the civil service ? I seriously do not see any sincerity in Mr Ho's letter. When I was young, I was often taught by my parents that a man should be brave enough to own up and apologize for one's own mistakes. Once, I got into a fight with my neighbor's son and punched two front tooths off his mouth. My mother dragged me to my neighbor's house to apologize to his parents in person. She did not tell them: "Eugene has apologized to me, acknowledging that he was wrong to punch your son." During the 2006 general election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an unreserved apology to Singaporeans a day after making his now infamous "fix the opposition" gaffe. He did not ask his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to write a letter to the Straits Times Forum saying: "Hsien Loong has apologized to me, acknowledging that his choice of words - 'fix the opposition' was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans." If even the Prime Minister can be humble and gracious enough to apologize for his mistake, why can't Mr Tan Yong Soon, who is after all, a "servant" of the people do so ? Is he too proud to apologize to us ? Or he feels that we are merely "lesser mortals" who do not deserve a personal apology from him ? I don't see any sense or meaning in him APOLOGIZING to Mr Peter Ho. It is utterly ridiculous ! It is unlikely that Mr Peter Ho will take offence to Mr Tan's article since both of them belong to the same elite "supergrade" civil servant clique. Is Mr Tan apologizing to Mr Peter Ho for causing him embarrassment and inconvenience for his ill-timed article with the end result that his superior has to clear up the mess he has left behind ? A man should be responsible for his own words and actions. I will be flabbergasted if our civil servants go running to hide behind the skirt of their boss each time they commit a mistake. Are we paying the top salaries to the right people ? Mr Tan Yong Soon has apologized to the wrong person and Mr Peter Ho has apologized for the wrong reason. Mr Tan Yong Soon should apologize to Singaporeans and NOT Mr Peter Ho. And Mr Peter Ho should apologize for failing to inculcate the right values and attitude in his senior civil servants as their immediate superior in charge of them. This letter is NOT ENOUGH to assauge the feelings of hurt and aggrieved Singaporeans. You guys are paid by taxpayers' monies to serve the people and you should have a modicum of honesty, sincerity and respect in your liaisons with us instead of treating us like idiots ! What do you take us for ? As masak-masak for you to toy around ? As a save-facing gesture for Mr Tan Yong Soon, we will not call for him to issue a public apology. A letter to the Straits Times expressing his regret over his ill-timed article in person should suffice to bring the matter to a proper closure.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer In an extensive interview given to The Straits Times last Saturday, Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng revealed that his ministry is currently reviewing public order laws to give the police greater powers to enforce them. (read the full article here). According to Mr Wong, Singapore's security forces need the powers to deal with such potential security situations pre-emptively on the ground and not let them occur and then deal with the consequences and perpetrators later. Though he did not explicitly outline the possible changes to the existing laws, my hunch is that a new law will be legislated to deal specifically with 'civil disobedience'. Under the present circumstance, processions and assemblies are regulated under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA) in which the police is unable to prevent the assembly from taking place and can only follow up with investigation after the show is over. Activists from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had made used of this loophole in the law to stage protests against the government notably at the IMF-WB meeting in 2007 and the Tak Boleh Tahan protest outside Parliament House in 2008. The events were filmed, including the sight of police manhandling and arresting the protestors at the scene. The recorded clips were subsequently uploaded to Youtube where it was viewed by thousands of Singaporeans who were both stunned and disgusted by the excessive use of force by the police against unarmed, peaceful fellow Singaporeans thereby exerting the maximum possible impact and blow to the government's image. In fact, this has been a recurring theme in the SDP's standard modus operandi to generate awareness about their cause and to shame the Singapore government via the sympathatic international press covering their activities who seldom writes in favor of the government. The government is acutely aware of the damage these fiascos have done to Singapore's reputation as a modern democracy in the eyes of the world and hence the urgent need to revamp the current legislation to prevent history from repeating itself in this year's APEC summit. Under the proposed public order laws, the police now has the power to remove anybody they suspect to be holding an illegal rally or demonstration immediately from the scene before they are allowed to stage their show. Civil activists will not even have the time to reveal their placards, let alone film the non-event before they find themselves being handcuffed and whiskered away in police vans with the end result that their intended message never quite get across to the outside world. In Singapore's conservative political climate where protests and rallies are frowned upon by many, civil activists are walking a lonely road fraught with unseen dangers and pitfalls. Ironically, the greatest threat to their existence and effectiveness does not lie in the impending law to pre-empt them from striking, but with a range of "liberalizing" measures the government introduced last year including allowing outdoor protests at Hong Lim Park which has since proved to be a red herring. In the past, the government is often rapped for draconian laws curtailing the civil rights of citizens by outlawing outdoor assemblies and protests. Civil activists no longer have any grounds now to cry foul against unfair laws to draw public attention to the repression they have suffered at the hands of the government. Rather than keeping the momentum going, they would have to be on the defensive now, being stuck in a quagmire between making use of the little space granted to them or to continue to defy the existing laws. Public protests draw the most attention when they are held at appropriate venues. Restricting them to an unimportant corner of the island will reduce their significance and impact. On the other hand, certain groups have shown that in spite of the limitations and disadvantages put in place, clever and skillful use of Hong Lim Park can achieve a desirable outcome as illustrated by Mr Tan Kin Lian's minibond rallies at Hong Lim Park which drew record crowds of over 1,000 and exerted indirect pressure on MAS and the financial institutions to offer more investors compensation. With the economy being the most pertinent issue on the minds of most Singaporeans and an administration bent on stifling dissent, is there still a place for 'civil disobedience' in Singapore ? Or has its death knell been sounded ? Should SDP continue to adopt a hardline stance against the government by openly flouting its laws in public or is it more practical for it to accept its erstwhile adversary's offer of a token 'olive branch' by limiting its political activities at Hong Lim Park from now onwards ? Unless SDP is able to attract a crowd of at least the size of Mr Tan Kin Lian's rallies, its political forays, however heroic and meaningful, are unlikely to effect a significant change in the political status quo in the near future.  Read More →