~by: Ghui~
Freedom of press and freedom of speech are the hallmarks of democracy. Singapore’s current position in the Press Freedom Index would therefore seem to indicate that Singapore is somewhat lacking in a key component of democracy.
Of course, Singapore is a young country and any new nation needs time to come into its own but is it enough to hide behind the guise of being a young nation? Is it sufficient to cite the oft quoted phrase “Asian values” as a reason to curb the press or free speech?
I do not deny that there can never be total freedom to say whatever one wants on a practical level. There are public policy considerations such as racial harmony or terrorism to consider. However, what falls under the umbrella of “public policy considerations”?
Recently, the Temasek Review Emeritus (“TRE”) has come under fire for alleged defamatory comments on its website. These offending remarks were apparently left by an over zealous reader of TRE.
I can understand why PM Lee is concerned by the unsubstantiated jibes and feels the need to vindicate himself. I fully believe that he has every right to publicly state that the comments on TRE are baseless and false. PM Lee is also completely justified in wanting to clear his name but are the measures he has taken entirely effective? Will the actions taken bridge the growing divide between the rulers and the ruled or do they only serve to further the rift between Singaporeans and the perceived ruling elite?
Are TRE’s transgressions potentially lawsuit worthy? I would think not. Such draconian measures should only be reserved for something that can threaten the security of Singapore of which this is not. There is after all a difference between one man’s reputation and a country’s foundation.
Post GE 2011, PM Lee promised a “lighter touch” on internet regulation. I had interpreted this to mean more engagement with the alternative media. I had thought that this would translate to more open dialogue in response to criticism and questions on the part of the government. I had also imagined that this would mean an end to lawyer’s letters and threatened law suits. This does not mean that members of the government should take to accepting all manner of insults but it does mean that it can tackle perceived criticism head on through discourse rather than resorting to “fear tactics”.
Take MP Baey Yam Keng for instance. Despite some rather rude postings on his Facebook page, he made the effort to defend himself by explaining his side of the story (see HERE). By so doing, he created dialogue and I have no doubt that this will win him some support.
For any government to be effective, there has to be productive communication. Genuine communication is built upon a relationship of mutual trust and respect and such trust and respect can never be fostered through fear. Fear is but a short term measure. Authentic authority is inspired by respect and I believe that it is possible for the PAP to earn that if more of its members follow Baey’s shining example.
It is possible maintain one’s reputation and defend untrue allegations without infringing on a free press or free speech. One can accept that others have a point of view without acknowledging the truth of that view.
As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Singapore is a young nation?
How can it be?
3 more years it will be 50 years old and its salary will get cut by 3%.
2%.
Sorry, I am a bit older than our nation.
This is called retribution. TRE caused Hougang to lose their elected MP by first publishing the article on YSL affair.
So why the u-turn now when they publish an article relating to nepotism in the LEE family by apologising and retracting the article? By the same token, they should either substantiate their claims or issue apology to YSL.
But yet their excuse is that they have to protect the wistleblowers identities to avoid lawsuits against them. Double standards?
They think that they could cover their backside just by turning against the opposition? WRONG.
So I hope by this lawsuit and negative msm against TRE, they would learn their lesson and be more careful not to shoot nonsense and anyhow defame MPs be it opposition or PAP.
Karma is a b–ch, isn't she?
Baey's shining example? That feller was twisting and contorting and evading the original question
well at least he (Baey) made an effort to try and talk la. whether true or not who knows but at least he appears to be trying…. better than PM. just pretend to say sorry pre GE but then still issue lawyer's letter…. sigh when will they learn?
You are right, please la. Singapore is not really that young but I guess compared to other countries it still kinda is young? It's not a good excuse though but of course, they will use it as a means to justify their censorship efforts….
if policies fail, any approach to the negative feedback will fail.
lol…
Even though large tracts of Singapore and many old and famous Constituencies have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Worker’s Party and all the odious apparatus of Opposition rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall sue in TRE, we shall sue on the seas and oceans, we shall sue with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall sue on the beaches, we shall sue on the landing grounds, we shall sue in the fields and in the streets, we shall sue in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the powers of Attorney, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Browbeatings does not served to exonerate a person. It exacerbate it !! Only magnanimity can win respects. When TRE first comes out in the 'open' they should have sought for editorial perogative to publish their rebuttals. Legal procedures only comes in if that fails.
@Brendan
There is no double standards here. TR has come of age. Freedom of speech and expression are paramount to one's freedom in a country. They are now exposed themselves to greater scrutiny and by doing this, they rid themselves being labelled fighting behind a cloak. I agree totally with this article posting. There can never be any true dialogue if fear is still homing around its citizens. If the ruling party continues the lip service without any precise action on engagement, by its own action, it is slenderous and defamatory toward its cittizens.
The big guys in Singapre has no sense of magnanmity and graceousness. They threatened and sued their own kind when they err as if their own kind is not made of fresh and blood.
On day one the son already adopts the sue gene and made the doctor pay dearly.
Come on, Sha said Singapore is not a country. I guess all these popular websites are monitored by a consolidated team of people and if you notice the timing of the letters, they are sent almost at the same time. I dont think LHL, LHY, Sha or GF have time to go read thousand of comments.
PM teared and made some promises during the last of the poll, but honestly, none come true. Do you trust him to be more open with new media?
1. Affordable HDB – more built but prices still sky high.
2. Influx of foreigners – base on record, it went up and this year they strategically reduce "FW" and increase levies but they purposely did not act on "FT" which is the major cause of the problems facing Singapore.
Said as much you want, nothing will change, they have too much too lose and very complacent. The only avenue is at the poll and if they still win hands down, just be the average complaining Singaporean. just complain and complain and take no action.
Singapore is not a young nation anymore. It is the pap that has remained immature.
And the pap cannot continue to "hide behind the guise of being a young nation" to shut the minds and mouths of Singaporeans.
It cannot continue to rule by instilling fear among us.
We Singaporeans certainly do not deserve to live in fear!
As a matter of fact, nobody in this world deserves to live in fear!
The pap has to either shape up or ship out!
If the pap refuses to call a by-election in Hougang, there is always the general elections to show that we Singaporeans refuse to live in fear!
Please stop kidding ourselves that Singapore has press freedom… All the official newspapers and broadcast media are government mouth piece. That's why I don;t read and watch local media. See all the manadarin dramas, they are full of government messages,
The PAP says " We are exempted from democracy and free speech and Human Rights." So they continue to threaten the community and suckle at the honey pots of the country with no questions asked.Such a simple formular!
@Overseas Singaporean
You missed my point. The question here is about the double standards treatment TRE for these 2 cases. TRE was willing to publish the YSL article without substantiating their case. Whether YSL choses to respond or sue is a different story altogether.
However, when someone more powerful sends a lawyer's letter regarding an article which was deeemed defamatory, they bend over and comply
So isn't TRE seen a bully in this case, targetting the weaker person (YSL) and a coward (by bending over to the miws)? Can they explain? I would have respected TRE more if not for their discrepancies and constant stance on both issues.
The editorial is simplistic, perhaps self-serving and flawed.
Being compact and multi-racial and religious, Singapore thus need and has laws with emphasis on strong public values and cannot adopt the Western model of free speech which imposes "no limits". And it would be perilious for Singapore to adopt the liberal democratic principles of US for instance. Singapore is a communitarian state not a liberal democracy of which by the nature of our constitution, we cannot thrive on. In Singapore, freedom of speech carries with it responsibility to soceity, and the trangressed. This is not a forum for expounding on the subject in large.
The problem is LHL lacks the trust and moral authority to refute allegations on the Internet. Otherwise he can simply publicly deny the claims and stand assured of being vindicated at least in the minds of the public. Unfortunately, he has to resort to threats of legal suits. This approach does not stand well with the public due to past use and abuse by those in power including LHL himself. So instead of quenching the flames, he created new sparks and spread the embers. The only positive thing to him is the reminder among all that the Sword of Damocles still hangs above. Yet that serves only to tone down moderate voices and encourages to go underground and remain anonymous.
To Editorial Flawed,
You clearly understand theories well but at which point did the editorial call for unfettered freedom of speech? It spelt out the need to consider public policy considerations explicitly. It merely questioned what falls under public policy?
In addition, it is not true that the west permits uncontrolled free speech. Certainly in the UK and in the US, if something threatens terrorism for instance, there is no free speech. It is certainly ill informed if you think otherwise.
But in this instance, is it one that merits silencing? Does this threaten our country or does it threaten the PAP? There is a difference.
How dare you talk about a small island country club nepocronystically established and managed? Please, for God’s sake, always tell yourselves the truth, nothing but the truth. If anyone believes or doesn’t believe, he has every right to do so. There is no transgression of faith; no proof required. You just need to open your eyes wide so you won’t dienastily! However,
Lo and behold! You will surely die standing with your eyes wide open only when you know the ultimate truth: that there’s should be no nepotism or cronysm
are you trying to encourage irresponsible posting of comments?
productive communication does not mean you can simply make untrue and unsubstantiate allegation about another person.
if you make an allegation, you need to prove your allegation, if not of course, the person being alleged will send you a legal letter, that is not high handed or heavy handed, and why should that person whom you alleged engage in communication with your allegation?
To Editorial flawed,
I think it is simplistic to suggest that the western model of free speech has "no limits". There are certain curbs on issues that may incite racial hatred or terrorism etc. In Singapore, I totally agree that these considerations should be considered but in this case, I don't think there is a national security issue?
But Soros Zhou - read the article. It says that PM has every right to defend himself. It is just the method used. Please read before you comment….. Othewise it is you that is irresponsible in posting with your irrelevace.
If readership of a socio-political blog is the true measure of its success, then TRE has won handsomely as a result of the latest defamation law suits. I understand that the readership of TRE has suddenly more than doubled over just one week as a result of these law suits. Even the number of "Likes" and "Dislikes" given by readers for comments after each article has exploded tremendously.
In the past, only the diehard opposition supporters can be bothered to log on to TRE, but now with the intense exposure of the law suits in the MSM, even those who are usually not interested in politics have become curious on what TRE has been reporting.
So the outcome of the law suits is not that bad for TRE. Let's hope the readership of TRE will continue to multiply through more effective exposure in the MSM.
In the process of suckaring (3-legged support) MSM seems voluntarily enhancing the popularity of social media like TRE, TOC and Yawning Bread. All related blogs should be interlinked locally and globally to give netizens broader outlook and opinions and be engaged in varied discussion with free flow of information, thus creating greater awareness on human rights that advocates living socio-politically without fear of being bullied.
Brendan
26 February 2012
@Overseas Singaporean
You missed my point. The question here is about the double standards treatment TRE for these 2 cases. TRE was willing to publish the YSL article without substantiating their case. Whether YSL choses to respond or sue is a different story altogether.
————–
Where is the double standard ? Articles were indeed published. Some parties involved responded with lawyer's letters and some did not.
YSL was removed ultimately. Maybe you would like to provide the the exact wordings that TRE published that was not substantiated.
One of the best covert govt site in blogosphere. I will not be surprised if TRE starts to moot Internet registration very soon, never trusted them. As for this suing here and there, it can mean so many things, but I don’t believe it points to the obvious.
Not everyone in the Internet can be that easily manipulated.
Friends, how do you prove nepotism, given that the man iin charge is the PM? If he or his subordinate or subordinate's subordinate says his wife is the most qualified who is to say no?
These lawsuits is a waste of time. The opacity with which these organisations and the chain of command operate make it impossible for a layperson to prove one way or other. Yet again and again resources are wasted to prove their innocence. It proves nothing. On the other hand their own proof consists of statements by lackeys that they have chosen the best person.
Since there is no way to prove either way, any right thinking leader will avoid being tainted by such accusations by making it a law that family members of the ruling elite should not take up hight posiions in government agencies or GLCs.
A law should be enacted that any close relative in any such position should be regarded as nepotism without the burden of proof on those who report it. This will save resources and face for the PM and his clique.
After all, having been paid millions, is this not enough?
Please think about it and once and for all end all this sham of lawsuits against people who rightly are stakeholders in this country and all its government agencies and GLCs.
T
During the PE 2011, the then TR was backing Mr Tan Jee Say and did a good job. The papies' attention was caught. The papies decided to go after TR and it was closed up.
A new group owners showed up and if we observe slowly and surely they have changed. The papies hve succeeded in making TRE one of its own. The papies are dangerous and have the money power to change a rock into a lightning symbol.
sidewinder
A law should be enacted that any close relative in any such position should be regarded as nepotism without the burden of proof on those who report it. This will save resources and face for the PM and his clique
………………………….
in europe..no ministers is allowed to hav their spouses connected in the interest of antineopsim rulin… maggie thatcher's hubby was critised for usin 10 Downing street as the address for his architect practise and maggie thatcher playboy son was slammed for tryin to use his mother rank for business connections
@iAMahMeng
The Ruling party will not adhere to any Western democratic practices like you mention above about Thatcher's son and husband coming too close to the source of Power. They hold Asian Values whatever it is meant to be.They self exempt themselves from standard ethical and best practice whenever it suits them.
We the citizenry are sitting ducks. Defamation suits are too heavy for most of us to bear.
I really do not see the point of this article. Every person reacts in a different way. It is the responsibility of the website owner to avoid unsubstantiated false claims against any person, far less the prime minister of his country. Maybe the PM wansts to set an example against false claims, maybe he was just irritated. No matter what, I do not see anything wrong in how he reacts.
Of course. The witch mob mentality that TRE is creating must be stopped immediately by the government. Remember, today it is a chinese kid that is persecuted, tomorrow it will be you because TRE's editors don't like you anymore…
I think there is always a danger when lawsuits are being used. LHL should totally just issue a statement. Singaporeans would appreciate it all. Lawsuits hark back to a time of fear when the likes of JBJ, TLH, CJS… That is the point of the article.
I am not a big fan of TRE but at the end of the day, they have contributed to the rise of the alternative media in Singapore which I appreciate…..
No one is begruding LHL for wanting to clear his name but its the method. You say everyone reacts differently. Where do you draw the line? There is a right way to react and a wrong way… I.e., if someone hits you, one person might report it to the police while another might hit back. However, if you hit a person back, in the eyes of the law, you might be guilty of something whereas if you had reported it to the police, it will be that guy that will be in trouble and not u….