From: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Defamation Suits Put Party at Risk of Bankruptcy
(New York, October 17, 2008) – Singapore’s leaders should end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition, Human Rights Watch said today.
“Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore’s claim to be a model democracy,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Opposition criticism of the government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.”
Human Rights Watch urged the Singaporean government to lift legal restrictions on freedom of expression to bring the country in line with international law.
On October 13, 2008, in Singapore’s latest defamation ruling, the High Court ordered the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary general, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a total of SD$610,000 (US$416,000). The suit stemmed from an article in the party’s newsletter comparing the way Singapore is governed to a scandal at a well-known charity. Six other defendants, all SDP central executive committee members, had previously issued an apology and paid a total of SD$340,000 (US$233,000) to the plaintiffs.
The ruling threatens to compel the SDP to declare bankruptcy and shut down.
The People’s Action Party has been in power since self-governance began in Singapore in 1959. In the last election in May 2006, it won 82 out of 84 parliamentary seats. The SDP has not won any seats in Parliament since 1991, when it captured three seats in its biggest election win.
Dr. Chee and Ms. Chee are not the first opposition leaders to be driven into bankruptcy by defamation suits. In 2001, J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition member of Parliament, who died on September 30, 2008, was made bankrupt through damages awarded to the two Lees and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Bankrupt Singaporean citizens are prohibited from running for office and may not travel abroad without permission from the government’s Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office.
In July 2008, the government refused to permit Ms. Chee to take part in a democracy leadership program at Stanford University in the United States. Dr. Chee’s travel applications have been repeatedly rejected.
The assault on free speech by Singapore’s leaders extends to critical foreign publications circulating in Singapore – whether newspapers, magazines or websites. In September 2008, the Lees won a defamation suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review and its editor, Hugo Restall, for comments on the SDP case. Damages are yet to be assessed. In a further action, the government is seeking contempt proceedings against the publisher and two editors of the Asian Wall Street Journal for editorial comments related to the same case.
In October 2007, the Financial Times publicly admitted it erred in its allegations that “nepotistic motives” were involved in the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong as prime minister in 2004 and the appointment of his wife, Ho Ching, as chief executive officer of Temasek Holdings, the state investment vehicle, in 2002. The Financial Times agreed to pay costs and damages. It is unclear whether the newspaper settled because the article was in error or because it wished to avoid being banned from distribution in Singapore.
In 2002, Bloomberg News settled out of court a defamation suit brought by the Lees and Prime Minister Goh. Bloomberg paid SD$595,000 ($US338,000) over “nepotism” charges similar to those for which the Financial Times apologized. In 1995, Lee Kuan Yew and two others collected US$675,000 in damages from the International Herald Tribune over the nepotism story. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew also collected US$210,000 from the International Herald Tribune for an October 1994 article stating that “some East Asia governments relied on a ‘compliant’ judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.”
“The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression,” said Pearson. “Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.”
———-
“Taking up such a job entails plenty of references to past cases which have already being decided. by the aptly described ‘kangaroo court’. ”
Exactly. Even before the start, the summary judgement already issued.
“lack of self-confidence”
It is not we have no confidence in ourselves but we don’t have confidence in this government.
“In fact, I believe you may have given up. I’m advising you not to give up hope”
I don’t think many still give up. As long as the people still commenting, they still harbour hope. The only thing is that people giving up on this government, they did not really give up on the country.
” You don’t trust him or any other PAP member either? If that’s the case, I have nothing more to say.”
WEll, maybe we can learn to trust him after the old farter died and PM step down.
smallvoice585 (#50):
Even you say the law should work both ways. From my personal experience in taking matters to the authorities, it is not always the case. Should I give up? No. It only highlights the state of despair the government is in and we, the citizens, must continue to push for reform within PAP and the government.
Even attempts to build a student union independent from the school´s administration were met with repeated scaremongering from the administration. Will the authorities do anything about it? Worst still, some people in power will tell you that threats of defamation suit is not scaremongering, and reaffirm that defamation suits are for defending their integrity.
A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers.
When this issue was taken up to the MCDYS, the ministry referred it to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). MUIS then told the mother to ¨sort it out herself¨. Sounds familiar? What should we as a society do? Should the government intervene in view of that there may be some form of oppressive religious repercussion against the mother? In principle, Opposition exists to take up issues that the government and/or ruling party refuse to participate, but Singapore´s opposition is already in a state of crisis.
Why do I do what I do? Because action speaks louder than words. I don´t have extreme cynicism or a lack of self-confidence.
Those who condemn this govt are thoughtless,super paranoid , self defeating, lacking self confidence…..if only you knew the truth what some of us do in real life, don’t be presumptuous !
It is not what Vivian has said but what has he done to be trusted ?
Any person who is self confident in his own ability does need to join the incumbents for a living. There are many talented men who are disgusted with the govt’ activities and it is the main reason why they have no desire to be part of the ruling party. DISGUSTING GOVT ACTIVITIES BEGETS CYNICISM !
Most of the criticisms of this govt is absolutely justified, and I repeat absolutely !
It is condescending for anyone to think he knows how to handle this govt.
It is not surprising for some netizens to react negatively to comments by so called political neutrals. Running the opposition down betrays the intentions of these neutrals and my experience tells me they do not have honourable intentions. I agree that not having anything else to say is the right step. LOL
#50
“It seems that anyone who refuses to thoughtlessly join the chorus of condemnation of the Govt is labelled a PAP supporter.
I believe if you are here in this discussion platform you would be open to all kinds of opinions and all mannerisms of presentation. I find nothing wrong in the way each poster presents his or her point. Some are direct, some are blunt and some makes no sense to me. We take them all in our stride.
One example is your generalisation of all who condemn the PAP as ‘thoughtless’.
Do I take offence, No, because i do know, and graciously invite, all to share and discuss their views.
I do agree with your person A, B, C & D analogy though but we must realise that this is the way things have been – this is why it is so difficult to dethrone the PAP regime. More importantly, person A in this context is the main stream media.
Wikipedia articles can be edited, you know. By people who know more, or better; go sign up for an account and DO something productive instead of whingeing.
better still if we can do both.
I understand that some comments here may provoke certain people as it may come across as cynicism and condemnation.
What i want to stress is that, this is the internet and we have every right to voice out our concerns and opinions. If the comments are an eye-sore to you, i suggest that you should skip that, you have every right not to read the comments or even patron this site. And we are talking about human rights here!
If you genuinely understand the deeper complexities of the political landscape here, you will understand why people are lamenting. Search your heart, do you truly feel free in singapore? Is there freedom of speech? Is there free demonstration against electricity hike or ERP hike? Anyone who tries to do that will end up in … u know it clear enough, i don’t need to spell out everything.
Is it a surprise that i don’t trust our gahment and judiciary after all the broken promises and ridiculous sentencing? We voice out because we hope to see change (though apparently there’s not even a tiny glimpse). If you don’t feel good reading all these because you feel your conscience is pricked or they tarnish the good impression you have of singapore’s gahment, there are 2 solutions.
1) Do your own research from good sources and justify your stand.
So that people will respect your viewpoint.
2) Accept that people are unique (especially in uniquely singapore) and opinions
may differ.
Do not be so hard up on yourself. Here, people just want to do their part to voice out and educate the 66.6% who may chance upon this blog. If you think that your viewpoint is correct, nobody can take it away from you. Nobody can control how you want to think, be it right or wrong. The vote is still up to you (if you even have a chance to vote).
well said don! just see it with your own eyes here how many singaporean are so unhappy here with the present garmet, the whole system now as I’ve mentioned earlier is no difference like head, I win, tail you lose situation, what are most of us here, the true citizens of singapore! not slaves, not criminals, not politicians, just commoners like in any other democratic countries who wants some simple, happy and peaceful lives. Do we have to be penalized for someone who think he can rule the world in the shortest span of time?
It is indeed heartening to note that dear Donaldson Tan, Daniel, gemami and conjob here have not given up hope for a better Singapore and declare that they are confident of themselves.
And as dear Donaldson Tan says – action speaks louder than words – I trust that henceforth your postings will go beyond mere criticisms of the Govt and try to have more productive opinions. And I hope gemami is sincere in saying that he is “open to all kinds of opinions and all mannerisms of presentation. I find nothing wrong in the way each poster presents his or her point”. Out of common net etiquette, we should refrain from calling people who disagree with us as PAP stooges or moles and assume or accuse those people of bad intentions. Especially, if these people had categorically denied those accusations. It is only polite that you take their word for it. Or else much space will be wasted on unproductive postings.
In that spirit, let me clarify a few things:
(1) Dear Daniel, whether our MM is still alive or not, or whether our PM has stepped down or not, we must not postpone our actions and live in a state of paralysis. Self-confidence will not allow that.
(2) Dear Donaldson Tan, whether we had past bad experience with the law or not, or whether officially declared defence against defamation is actually scaremongering or not, we should continue playing along in the implicit understanding that “the law should work both ways”. Or else, there will be a total breakdown of civil society.
Now, your example about the adoption of the Muslim child is touching on racial and religious issues. I sincerely advise you not to pursue this example (for obvious reasons) and maybe cite a different example.
(3) Dear conjob, I detect you to be an angry person, but please look beyond criticisms and anger for they betray a sense of helplessness. If you had read any of my posts, I had never on a single occasion run down the opposition politicians (their job is already hard enough). It is also careless of you to extrapolate from your past experience of dishonourable “so-called political neutrals” and generalise that all self-declared political neutrals are the same. By the same token, have you ever entertained the possibility that those who condemn the PAP the loudest can, in fact, be a well-disguised PAP mole? Netizens should be smarter and more sophisticated! I’m suggesting that taking a politically neutral stance is both tenable and more productive.
(4) Dear gemami, you should read posts more carefully. When I say – “It seems that anyone who refuses to thoughtlessly join the chorus of condemnation of the Govt is labelled a PAP supporter”, it does not follow that I harbour a “generalisation of all who condemn the PAP as ‘thoughtless’”. What my statement say is that I refuse to criticise the Govt without thinking and my refusal should not be taken as evidence of support for the PAP. It is totally different from saying that all critics of the Govt are unthinking. You could have given the issue much thought and still decide to criticise the Govt. Conversely, someone may refuse to criticise the Govt out of ignorance. What I said originally is a description of my personal policy of thinking through something deeply first before shooting from the hip and I should not be penalised for it.
Dear don, ha ha,
Thanks for your concern. I do not feel provoked or unhappy about postings here as they are mostly rather uniform and unchallenging. I’m here to find out about the political thinking of Singaporeans, exchange notes and educate readers here about what’s the best thing we can do to make Singapore better.
But I do feel disappointed at the sense of anguish, helplessness and bitterness as shown by most posters here. Most spend their time criticising, condemning and scolding and refuse to explore new ways of thinking. If you keep harping on how bad a situation you are in, you will not put your mind to doing the next step.
Who doesn’t know about the relative lack of political freedom and human rights, the fee hikes, etc, etc. There is no need to do any research to know that. But, what’s the use of lamentations? Ok,… you can lament, but only for a while to get it off your chest.
What’s important is to know what’s the next step! And what to do next is NOT to keep banging your head against the wall. We must act within the law and respect our institutions (despite our misgivings about them).
I propose a 4-step process:
(1) Understand the nature of politics and our political situation in the widest context possible – the good parts, the bad parts, how they are related, what are the things that can lead to trouble, what are the feasible things we can do, what new and creative things can be explored without compromising the welfare of the people, etc, etc.
(2) List the possible actions that can be taken.
(3) Select the best course of action.
(4) Assess the best ways to implement it including the use of the internet.
I hope posters here can contribute to this task constructively as fellow loyal citizens of Singapore.
to smallvoice,
you claim to think things deeply before shooting from the hip.
You just did. Where in my posting did I say all political neutrals are not honourable ? And you accuse me of being careless. I made the comment based on so called neutrals who repeatedly run down the opposition. I am well aware of the deception practised by this govt and you are wrong to assume helplessness.
Whilst you detect anger in me, I detect a condescending approach in you.
Re examine your own sweeping statements on those who condemn the govt as being thoughtless, self defeating , lacking in self confidence, super paranoid.
Like I have said, don’t be presumptuous.
A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers. – Donaldson Tan (#52)
Now, your example about the adoption of the Muslim child is touching on racial and religious issues. I sincerely advise you not to pursue this example (for obvious reasons) and maybe cite a different example. – smallvoice585 (#59)
To say I should not pursue this matter is to marginalise the poor mother and child. This is exactly the stand MCDYS and MUIS took leaving the mother alone. In a non-religious state such as Singapore, one´s allegiance to the state precedes the allegiance to religion. If any religion preaches any form of discrimination or intolerance, the state should intervene.
to smallvoice585
“Thanks for your concern. I do not feel provoked or unhappy about postings here as they are mostly rather uniform and unchallenging. I’m here to find out about the political thinking of Singaporeans, exchange notes and educate readers here about what’s the best thing we can do to make Singapore better”.
(gemani: I think this platform is more informative than challenging. If you are looking for challenging platforms, then it’s good to go visit any of the opposition websites. You are here because you want to listen to what others are saying about the govt – a different opinion, if you like. From here, you can draw your own conclusion without the need to forced it on you as is the case with the mainstream media.
The day will come when discussion threads like this will be engaging and challenging. Not at the moment. The first step is to inform and with the numerous posters sharing the same voice – and in your own words ‘uniform’ – then it is informative in the sense that there is common ground for grievances and ‘lamentations’.
It is hoped that visitors to this site will see the other side of the coin and be informed that things are not always what they are ‘printed’ out to be by the MSM).
“But I do feel disappointed at the sense of anguish, helplessness and bitterness as shown by most posters here. Most spend their time criticising, condemning and scolding and refuse to explore new ways of thinking. If you keep harping on how bad a situation you are in, you will not put your mind to doing the next step”.
(gemani: the least any of the posters would want any visitor to this site to feel is disappointed. Then again, it depends on what you are looking for. As mentioned, if you are looking to be informed – in no uncertain terms – foul languages included, you will get as raw a deal as you won’t find anywhere else).
“Who doesn’t know about the relative lack of political freedom and human rights, the fee hikes, etc, etc. There is no need to do any research to know that. But, what’s the use of lamentations? Ok,… you can lament, but only for a while to get it off your chest”.
(gemani: I disagree because the first step has to be lamentations. People have to feel aggrieved before they act or even react).
“What’s important is to know what’s the next step! And what to do next is NOT to keep banging your head against the wall. We must act within the law and respect our institutions (despite our misgivings about them)”.
(gemani: remedies are many but are they feasible with the current political climate of fear – both from the people as well as from the pap?).
“I propose a 4-step process:
(1) Understand the nature of politics and our political situation in the widest context possible – the good parts, the bad parts, how they are related, what are the things that can lead to trouble, what are the feasible things we can do, what new and creative things can be explored without compromising the welfare of the people, etc, etc.
(2) List the possible actions that can be taken.
(3) Select the best course of action.
(4) Assess the best ways to implement it including the use of the internet.
I hope posters here can contribute to this task constructively as fellow loyal citizens of Singapore”.
(gemani: agreed, but now is not the time – yet).
Thanks gemami for your kind reply and advice. Perhaps, I’m at the wrong website.
I’ll leave this website permanently for look for other websites or contribute my efforts for a better Singapore at a different platform.
I hereby wish all posters here all the best in pushing your aggenda.
May I entrust you, gemami, to ensure that, in the future, in your own words – “discussion threads like this will be engaging and challenging” and be ready to take the next step because the people of Singapore cannot wait forever.
Goodbye.
A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers. – Donaldson Tan (#52)
Hi Donaldson Tan, it is interesting that you raised an example that is specific and peculiar to support your arguement. Perhaps I haven’t actually understood your stand on the matter well. Could you clarify if
1) if you are in agreement or disagreement for the unwed mother to give away the child
2) if you are in agreement or disagreement to the advice of the adoption agency for the mother to give up her religion so that the baby ceased to be a Muslim
It will be useful to give an indication of the source of this story, the year it occured perhaps?
My direct question to you is because I seriously doubt the authenticity of this story.
Thanks.
It will be useful to give an indication of the source of this story, the year it occured perhaps? – Obzervr (#65)
It happened last year. The story was due to be published on Straits Times but it was axed last minute for obvious reason. I know the reporter who wrote the article. Not everyone at Straits Times is a propagandist.
My position is that I disagree that there should be abandonment, discrimination and / or intolerance arising from whatever choice the mother makes. She is already in dire straits since she is in the situation that compels her to give away her baby, whether the baby is Muslim is not. However, I must say I do not know enough of the motivation behind the Child Adoption Agency to make that advice.
Hi Don,
Thanks for the reply. From the reply, at least now we now that the incident happened last year.
I read that you are appealing that the young mother’s family, friends and community accepts her decision should 1) she decides to give away the baby, 2) possibly give away the baby to a family that doesn’t profess the same faith as her and 3) renounce her faith so as to make it possible. However, I am still very much left to figure out your stand regarding the advice of the adoption agency.
The picture I get is that of a young Singaporean Muslim unwed mother that is without a support system to absorb her and the child such that an Adoption agency becomes the best possible solution. Chances are she may have a traumatic pregnancy (going through the pregnancy alone) and an equally traumatic delivery (having to go though labour and all pre labour preparations alone).
My concerns are:
1) Where is the young mother’s family and peers at the point where she was pregnant and in labour?
2) Was her decision to give away the baby an informed one? Was she made aware of available options to care for her child such as fostering? Is giving away the baby is indeed the best way out to resolve the issue? How did the intervention plans reach the point that adoption was seen to be the way out? After her ordeal, was she in a right state of mind to be adviced and deciding on her immediate future? Whose interests were being promoted here?
3) Even if putting up for adoption was indeed the best way out, is there already a trend of inability for a Muslim baby to find an adoptive family such that the advice to increase the chances beyond Muslim families were required?
In my opinion, getting the mother’s family and peers to accept her decision is solely on the grounds of humanity and compassion. It is not something that can and should be enforced by law but imrpoved through education. However, if education is indeed a possible means to improve the family and peers’ acceptance, then education should begin from the subject of accepting that she has given birth to a baby at a young age, she has difficulties coping and with the best interest of the mother and child in mind, the family members and peers could facilitate the caregiving and help the mother mature in her new role. Why intervene only on getting the family and peers to accept her decision to give a way the child, possibly having to renounce her religion out of compulsion just so that the baby can stand a better chance to be adopted (assuming that indeed there a a lack of suitable Muslim families to adopt the baby… which I doubt).
In such a situation, I am more inclined to challenge the Apdoption Agency’s advice for the mother to renounce her religion such that the chances may be improved. It is a very inhumane act which preys on a person ordeal. Already the mother would have undergone a traumatic pregnancy and delivery, she is also facing the prospects of having to live with a lifelong trauma and guilt of giving away the child and she is cornered into believing that the way out is by renouncing a belief system which under normal circumstances she may not even consider.
If the law prohibits a Muslim mother to give away a child to a non Muslim family and this poses a disadvantage to the child (due to the extremely low chance or total absence of success), then the Adoption Agency should advocate for the law to be amended and NOT the easy way out of advicing mothers in distress to renounce the faith. Again, that is on the assumption that the child will not be able to be successfully adopted by a Muslim family or the child will have a worse off life if adopted by a Muslim family than by a Non-Muslim family. I however seriously doubt this.
You wrote:- “When this issue was taken up to the MCDYS, the ministry referred it to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). MUIS then told the mother to ¨sort it out herself¨. Sounds familiar? What should we as a society do? Should the government intervene in view of that there may be some form of oppressive religious repercussion against the mother? ”
I agree with the question you asked: What should we do as a society? Do we just challenge and force the family and peers to accept the young mother should she renounce her faith when we are not concerned that she has already been rejected just because she was pergnant and has given birth out of wedlock? Do we accept the advice of an Institutionalised Adoption Agency for her to renounce her faith without challenging the Agency of its rationale, whether the advice was validated by facts or most appropriate? It has to be questioned that when the young mother approached MCYS and MUIS, what were the requests exactly?
I am by no means trying to defend MCYS or MUIS as in my opinion, both these institutions are not direct parties to the issue in the example you raised. Rather, I question the relevance of this example altogether.
Do we really want the opposition to advocate for the government to enforce a measure to prevent religious discrimination by supporting gender discrimination (discriminating the young mother for having a baby and punishing her by giving advice that may not be sufficienly accurate or complete)?
Rgds,
Do you think that Obama is going to win because the Republicans have such a bad candidate?
Why did John McCain make his final argument against Obama… coal?
That’s his closing argument? William Ayers, Rev. Wright, spreading the wealth, Born Alive, meeting dictators without preconditions, etc. all have to take a back seat so that McCain can go to Colorado and New Mexico to talk about coal? Does this more or less explain why he’s going to get his clock cleaned Tuesday?
Do we really want the opposition to advocate for the government to enforce a measure to prevent religious discrimination by supporting gender discrimination (discriminating the young mother for having a baby and punishing her by giving advice that may not be sufficiently accurate or complete)? – Obzervr
What I am saying is that there should be no gender discrimination or religious discrimination. If not, what is the point of having the state as a higher moral authority than religions?