TR EMERITUS

(28 May)   A major move to step up its international presence, Alibaba Group announced on Wednesday that it will purchase a 10.35% stake in SingPost, Singapore’s national postal service provider, for $249 million. The deal will render Alibaba the second largest shareholder in publicly-traded SingPost, after the government-controlled Singapore Telecommunications which currently owns 25%. One member of Alibaba is expected to join the board of SingPost to oversee the parties’ joint initiative to develop an international e-commerce platform. “Through this collaboration, we hope to create concrete benefits for our overseas buyers and sellers by enhancing the user experience and providing greater access to a suite of international e-commerce logistics solutions and products.” says Daniel Zhang, Chief Operating Officer of Alibaba in the press release. Read more: www.forbes.com/sites/hengshao/2014/05/28/alibaba-to-buy-249-mil-stake-in-singapore-post-to-step-up-intl-presence  Read More →

PM Lee CASSIO: Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation! IAGO: As I am an honest man, I thought you had received some bodily wound; there is more sense in that than in reputation. Reputation is an idle and most false imposition: oft got without merit, and lost without deserving. You have lost no reputation at all, unless you repute yourself such a loser. -          Shakespeare, Othello Under Singapore law, damage to reputation is presumed in a claim for libel. The award of general damages is primarily to compensate the plaintiff for the consequences of the defamatory statement. It serves to “console the plaintiff for the hurt and distress that has been caused by the defamation” and “redress … the harm that has been caused to his reputation and as a vindication of his reputation” (“Damages in defamation: what is considered and what is awarded?”). Nonetheless, the plaintiff does not have to prove that he has suffered emotional injuries or actual damages to his reputation as a result of the defamation. Here’s a recap of how much damages the Singapore court had awarded to our PAP political leaders in defamation cases from 1979: Lee Kuan Yew vs J. B. Jeyaretnam (1979) Awarded: S$130,000 In which Mr Lee was awarded S$130,000 for Mr Jeyaretnam’s allegation that Mr Lee had abused his office as Prime Minister and lacked honesty and integrity. Lee Kuan Yew vs Seow Khee Leng (1989) Awarded: S$250,000 In which Mr Lee was awarded S$250,000 for the remark by the opposition candidate that he was guilty of corruption. Lee Kuan Yew vs J. B. Jeyaretnam (1990) Awarded: S$260,000 In which Mr Lee was awarded S$260,000 for Mr Jeyaretnam’s remarks that he was guilty of dishonourable and/or criminal conduct. Lee Kuan Yew vs Derek Gwyn Davis & Ors (1990) Awarded: S$230,000 In which Mr Lee was awarded S$230,000 for an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review accusing him of using his powers improperly under the Internal Security Act. Lee Kuan Yew vs Vinocur (1995) Awarded: S$350,000, S$300,000 and S$300,000 In which Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was awarded S$350,000 while SM Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong were awarded S$300,000 each for an article in the International Herald Tribune alleging nepotism and corruption in the three leaders. Lee Kuan Yew vs Vinocur (1996) Awarded: S$400,000 In which Mr Lee was awarded S$400,000 for anIHT article which alleged that he had relied on a compliant judiciary to obtain judgment against political opponents and bankrupt them ( “Award much higher because injury greater,” Straits Times, 30 May 1997). Other cases: Lee Kuan Yew vs Tang Liang Hong (1997) Awarded: S$2.3 million Goh Chok Tong vs Tang Liang Hong (1997) Awarded: S$1.4 million Lee Kuan Yew vs Chee Soon Juan (2005) Awarded: S$200,000 Goh Chok Tong vs Chee Soon Juan (2005) Awarded: S$300,000 (sources: “Award much higher because injury greater,” Straits Times, 30 May 1997 and this) In Tang Liang Hong’s case, Justice Chao Hick Tin awarded a record S$8.075 million in damages to 13 plaintiffs including Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. He justified his decision to award the record sum “because the injury, embarrassment and hurt caused were much greater” (“Award much higher because injury greater,” Straits Times, 30 May 1997). Injury to Reputation? There are four types of harm to reputation: 1. special damage refers to “demonstrable pecuniary loss” such as the loss of a job or contract; 2. actual injury which includes demonstrable harm other than those classified as special damage, such as a disrupted or deteriorated existing relationship; 3. harm to relations in general, including harm to future relations such as social isolation; 4. Damage to public image (“Reputation, compensation and proof,” pp.767-770). The public has no way to gauge the extent of the first three types of damage unless relevant information is disclosed by the plaintiff himself. Evidence that one’s public image is tarnished may include the following: Quantitative or qualitative changes in the plaintiff’s fan mail would be relevant, and print and electronic clipping services can provide a sample of the media coverage of the plaintiff before and after the defamation. If the plaintiff is a performer, ratings and audience turnouts can provide a barometer of public acceptance. If the alleged harm is the creation of a negative public image, a plaintiff should be able to prove the existence of injury through the testimony of people who had not heard of him previously, but who now hold an unfavorable impression of him. He should be able to show the extent of the injury through survey evidence showing the portion of the population that heard and remembered the defamatory statement (“Reputation, compensation and proof,” p. 770). Notwithstanding that no proof of actual harm to reputation is necessary for plaintiffs seeking damages, we may, inferring from the above, adopt some measures to gauge if our political leaders’ public image has been blighted by the defamatory statement. First, has the media coverage of the political leader turned against him after the defamation? We can firmly say “no” in the context of our local mainstream media. What about foreign media? Ideally, we need a sample of media reports before and after the defamation in order to know. However, taking into account foreign media’s previous run-ins with our political leaders and the absence of defamation lawsuits by our leaders against foreign media in recent years, it is likely that the media have steered clear of allegations of corruption or abuse of power by our leaders after the high profile defamation cases involving Far Eastern Economic Review and IHT. Furthermore, Singapore has always ranked very highly in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) by Transparency International. From available data on Transparency International’s website, Singapore has always been one of the top ten least corrupt countries in the world since the CPI debuted in 1995 (source). This shows that the impression of Singapore as a relatively corruption-free country has persisted despite allegations of corruption directed at our political leaders in the past. In other words, it does not seem that our political leaders’ reputation for being non-corrupt has been harmed, much less in a substantial way, by the defamation statements over the years. Singapore Armchair Critic * The author blogs at singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com.  Read More →

PM Lee and Mr Low Thia Khiang (Photo: TODAY) PM Lee and WP chief Low Thia Khiang traded verbal blows in Parliament yesterday (28 May). The fiery 15-minute sparring began when Mr Low jumped up from his seat to rebut Mr Lee's speech on the President's address. Heated arguments ensued. PM Lee accused WP of flip-flopping on issues and questioned WP's performance in Parliament. Who came out looking more convincing? You decide. Here is the transcript of the dialogue in Parliament between PM Lee and Mr Low yesterday (video can be accessed through https://zh-cn.facebook.com/workersparty): Mr Low: Mdm, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics: Because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views, and moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspectives of Singapore. It’s important for us to move forward together as one united people. The other MPs from the WP will be talking about different issues; they will cover ranging from social issues, social safety net to foreign workers, national security. They will cover the full range of areas. Thereby we split our jobs. I will focus on constructive politics. I thought it was an important issue and of course, it’s important to also understand what is the perspective of the PAP, in terms of constructive politics. And from what the PM has said, it seems to me that it is more constructive debated on the terms of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward and I had affirmed my endorsement of what the president has said, that we should look at the outcome of constructive politics, that is, that we should be able to move forward together despite the differences. Next, talking about the WP flip-flopping on foreign workers issue. I say again, I don’t think we have flip-flopped. I have explained, in this House, of some misunderstanding of the speeches (that have been) made. In any case, I also noted that when the PAP has to make a policy U-turn, they call it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or it’s a flip-flop. Mr Lee: Mdm speaker, I think the record will speak for itself, when we make a shift we acknowledge a shift. When the WP changes position they pretend they haven’t – that is the difference. As for delegating responsibility for different parts of the Budget speech to different MPs, that’s entirely within Mr Low Thia Khiang’s prerogative. It’s not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the WP. But as a leader, you do have a responsibility to state where does the party stand on the big issues. Somebody can look after healthcare, somebody can take care of transport, somebody can spend all his time marking Minister Heng Swee Keat on education, but where you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right, is it doing wrong, do you agree with the Government, do you have a better view, or do you abstain or do you abstain from abstaining? Mr Low: I think our position is quite clear on many of these issues. If the Prime Minister wanted my view on what the Government has been doing and whether he has done well. I’d say, well you’ve solved some of the problems – what the PM has mentioned – and the WP MPs also acknowledged this in their speech but also pointed out there are things that are still work in progress and the Government will have to focus on and to make it better and to improve. That is (the) position. I don’t see the need for me to totally sum up. I think the MP should be able to do in their own view, and to give their view and their assessment and at the same time, wherever possible offer certain views and alternative suggestions to improve the policies. Mr Lee: Mdm Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when it comes to election rallies because the WP approach has been to be extremely reasonable – indeed low profile – in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes. Mr Low: Mdm Speaker, I thank the PM for praising the WP’s ability to fight in the elections. We have no intention to hide ourselves in parliament. We seek the mandate from people to come to parliament to check against the Government. We have done it honestly and sincerely, we have not turned this place into a theatre. That shows we are responsible and we will behave continuously as a rational and responsible party and if members would – I believe members will agree, that the WP has been rational. We have not come here with some wild polices or wild suggestions. We debate the policies, we came up with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffer or suggesting to use the reserves. Elections — I think we are also rational. We don’t accuse the PAP of something we cannot substantiate or I know we’d get sued. I think we’re fair. Elections are elections and I thank the PM for noting that we can fight an election, I’m sure the PAP can too. You are the Government, you have been the governing party for 50 years and you’ve got (much more) talented people than the WP. How can you say we are tiger and we are something else in Parliament? I’m sure the PAP equally can be tiger or lions. Mr Lee: It’s an eloquent explanation for why the WP has been inarticulate, about many things. In a serious parliament, the Government presents its policies. The Opposition presents its alternatives. The WP may not have alternatives on every issue; it may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or MediShield scheme. You do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going. And that direction has to be set clearly – not to explain to the PAP, but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for. And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing, and a little bit better. That means you have no stand. Where-ever the PAP is standing, ask them to do better. That’s easy, I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think, in principle, we do not want Singapore to be like this. These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not be lidded over and avoided in the house. And that is what a first world parliament should be about. Mr Low: Mdm speaker, again I’d like to say the PM is reasonable to say that the WP may not be able to come up with all the alternative policies. That’s true. But to say that the WP has no position on major issues, that’s not true. I think we did state our position in parliament. We debated major policies vigorously. We don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and it concerns the future of Singapore, like the Population White Paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough? Mr Lee: I think it is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate, the position taken by the WP is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow; I have not heard the WP demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore? Mr Low: We had made a calculation at that point in time while debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers to grow it will be untenable in the future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers’ growth in numbers. Our calculation was that probably within the existing number of foreign workers, you can still move (them) around in some sectors that don’t need so much of FWs thereby you can still get by with the zero foreign workers’ growth. We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off. That is our position at that point in time. We have not objected subsequently, or grilled the Government, for why are (they) not doing it because that is our view, that it should have zero (foreign worker) growth, but the Government decided otherwise that’s their way of doing it. We have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on. But our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning and I’m glad to hear today that PM is saying that the Government is taking a very serious view the about tightening and watching the growth of population. Mr Lee: Mdm speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I don’t know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what was said in Parliament in the White Paper debate last year. Because if he really does, after all the explanation, he should say, we have too many foreign workers now, send home 70,000. Then we will know where he stands. But after telling me you can massage this and some people can do (with) less and others will need more – that’s easy to say, who’s going to do the massaging? Of course, the Government. And that, is the mark of a sub-standard Opposition. Mr Low: Mdm speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a sub-standard Opposition. This is the mark of a responsible Opposition not to jam up the Government; allowing the Government - after giving our view, debating it – allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government. It is a mark of a responsible Government and a mark of first world Parliament. Mr Lee: Mdm speaker. We have to call a spade a spade. If we have changed position and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible, that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.  Read More →