the following is a media release by the Singapore Democratic Party:
The recent threats of defamation suits by PAP's leaders against Mr Alex Au and the editors of TR Emeritus (TRE) is another blow to freedom of speech in Singapore.
For years, the Singapore Democratic Party has been the target of attacks from the ruling party and the media it controls. In addition, blogs and websites publish articles and comments from PAP supporters criticisng us in unreasonable, often defamatory, ways. But we have never threatened editors of such sites with legal action.
We choose, instead, to publish our own website and put forward reasoned arguments to counter such views. More important, rather than silencing our critics through lawsuits the SDP responds to our detractors by demonstrating our capability and leadership qualities.
Through the years we striven to be a competent and well-organised opposition party. We have consistently demonstrated that we are a party of ideas and alternative solutions. In other words, a constructive opposition party. We have crafted a vision of a compassionate, just and egalitarian Singapore that the people have welcomed.
As a result, more and more Singaporeans are beginning to understand what we are about and the values we stand for. And because of this, they are coming to join the party in unprecedented numbers.
Such a turnaround has taken many years to establish and we are still in the process of building up. But if we aspire to lead this nation, there is no option. Leadership – sound leadership – takes time to develop and it comes from inspiring and persuading the people, not suing and silencing them.
We need to respect their views no matter how much we consider them to be wrong. Shutting them up through lawsuits and controlling the media may be the expedient thing to do but it harms the larger, and longer-term, good of society.
It is important that leaders develop our character, not merely protect our reputation. For, unlike reputation, character is permanent.
In this age of the Internet, let Singapore's political leaders not continue with legal action. Let defamation suits, or threats of defamation suits, be a thing of the past. Let us have confidence that our people can argue and disagree, and that such debate and contention forge a strong nation.
To this democratic end, we call on the PAP to exercise quality leadership and leave the blogosphere and, in particular, the TRE to function the way it has in the past.
In politics there will always be people who disagree with us and, for a time, we may be maligned and misunderstood. But let us not forget the wisdom of the late Martin Luther King Jr who said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Dr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
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
Response to keephiminalunaticasylum
Slowly but surely the practice of defamation suits and ISA actions will graduate to poisoning and incarceration of political opponents and dissidents in mental institutions.where no cause need be declared except the accusation of mind doctors. Just give the PAP another 10 years and their methods of oppression and suppression will make a quantum leap. Just take a look at how despotic regimes keep the populace under control. Your suggestion of throwing CSJ into a lunatic asylum is not original with you. Many of his enemies must have thought of it too. But given the climate of ethics of the common citizen in Singapore , your suggestion is ahead of it time. Do that after another 10 years of PAP hegemony.
@the response to keep…….
@son of s
We know the sacrifices made by CSJ and his family. Yes he was a daredevil both in action and words. Perhaps he has wisened to the fact that the deep rooted malice known as papigs should be won tactfully.
So we should not be excited to see papig trollers like the few commenting derogatively about Dr Chee. The pigs are pigs and we should ignore their grunts.
I wish to see dr Chee make more speeches after the retirement of lky.
Everyone must retire wuthout exception. One way, the other way, next way or some other way.
"Leaders must persuade, not silence"
We dont think thats a problem. Thats is a given.
But not slander or libel.
Rule of law, Show PROOF.
rule of law,
how does one go about gathering proof? is there an govt agency that teaches the common folk how to do it, what tech tools are needed if can loan for free best), & the legal limits of going about such actions?
any links would be helpful. your one hand uphold the rule of law, can the other hand reach out to help others help your other hand upholding the rule of law? thanks in advance. :)
One thing I need to be clear about, and do persuade me on this: Dr Chee is for false postings on the Internet?
@Marko Ramius
Good question. I am unable to persuade you. But my answer is YES.
@PAPForever :I share your view absolutely..yes CSJ is being vindictive and a sore loser nothing more.
Politically vacuous…trying to create socia-political division but he will not go more than one step before falling into the abyss…soon
It is not about the poor quality of oppositions as PAP wants us to believe via their brainwashing of citizens through the PAPPYganda because oppositions are not the government. The oppositions do not cause our costs of living and housing to go up or influx of foreigners to take away our jobs. Many may be missing the wood for the tree or have been brainwashed into this state of frequent criticisms against CSJ due to constant brainwashing. The bigger issue we are concerned with is about the PAPtocracy and PAPPYsuing of oppositions with PAPlibeliating the oppositions that result in lack of opposition to provide check and balance to our PAPtocracy.
@Robert Teh
The basic purpose of any opposition is to oppose and criticise the gahmen. Nothing wrong with that. In Sg the people are looking for alternative approaches besides that already dished out by the Pappies for the last 50 yrs for our constraint scenario.
The problem is that many times the opposition hurl unsubstantiated claims of bad policies and failed policies. This has definitely hurt their image. This is like crying wolf too many times and lethargy sets in. In fact, Pappies need not even have to answer to such accusations cos they need not. That is why they didn't respond.
No doubt there may be policies that may not be that good and some even have to be withdrawn, but the way opposition spins it to make it look like a major failure is what spoils the picture. As much as one says the citizenry has wisen up to Pappies ways, so the same goes with the opposition. The opposition cannot fool the people for long. Flogging the dead horse will not bring any benefit. We are not daft.
Having said that, Sg do need a reliable opposition which is of quality. Not only able to criticise and point out weaknesses, better still if they come out with viable alternatives. I'm sure all of us will be interested and listening intently if such is the case, for the betterment of Sg, irrespective of which party.
Stop the spin,
the only way to properly check the ruling party is to make govt agencies be open & transparent. audits or checks by anyone needs access to the details to do a credible audit.
is HDB's costs such a state secret? how about S'pore's national reaserves. how about appointment of stat boards, the processes? if everything also cannot check or audit, how can critics put out anything credible?
its always easy to blame others for not doing their homework, but how does one work when the other party keeps everything under tight wraps? can the blame then be pinned on people who see it as maneuvers to preserving self interest?
@mice is nice
I wrote a long reply to you but its gone. So here comes the short reply.
There are 5 opposition MPs and another 3 NCMP in parliament. They can request for info and data from the relevant ministries in parliament. Go visit one of them and talk to him/her of the info/data you wish asked in parliament. You will definitely get a reply.
Without info/data available to public does not warrant one to cast aspersions or make unsubstantiated claims.
spin doctor,
haa, sometimes my long reply gets under mod queue as well. though i see other longer posts…
one does not always get what one asks. when the poor or needy or people with special needs ask for more money govt give so easily? bus operators never ask for money yet govt just give?…
hopes your post comes out from the moderation queue. :)
I saw, this excerp somewhere. This speaks well of our system. Hope someone has the whole article. It would be good to have it here.
In his defence, Mr Lee cited Dr Chee’s surreptitious recording of his conversation with Dr S Vasoo, former PAP MP and the one who initiated Dr Chee’s sacking, as evidence to support his accusation of Dr Chee. Mr Lee, in his interrogatory, asked Dr Chee the following questions:
1. With respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, did the Defendant on 7 December 1992 bring a tape recorder to see Dr S. Vasoo, the Head of the Department of Social Work and Psychology?
2. If the answer to the 1st interrogatory is ‘yes’, did the Defendant tape the conversation between him and Dr Vasoo?
3. When Dr Vasoo asked the Defendant if their conversation was being tape recorded by the Defendant, did the Defendant deny that he was tape-recording their conversation?
4. Did the Defendant also tape record an earlier conversation between the Defendant, Dr Vasoo and a third party without first informing Dr Vasoo and the third party that he was tape recording their conversation?
In 1986, it was recorded that Mr Lee had used a tape recording of a Law Society meeting for a Parliamentary Select Committee hearing convened to debate the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act. If he considers his own action of taping the conversations of others as good and right then he cannot possibly accuse Dr Chee of being “a fraud, a liar and a cheat” for doing what exactly what Mr Lee himself did. For this reason, Dr Chee has asked Mr Lee the following:
1. In the 1986 there was an extraordinary general meeting of the Law Society to discuss the Legal Profession (Amendment) bill. Did the Plaintiff, through the ISD or any other means, tape them proceedings of the meeting?
2. If the answer to the above interrogatory is ‘yes’, was it done with the knowledge and consent of the participants of that meeting?
3. Did the Plaintiff cite some of the words that were spoken at the Law Society meeting mentioned inminterrogatory 1 during the Select Committee hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill in 1986?
4. When asked how the Plaintiff knew about what was said at the Law Society meeting mentioned in interrogatory 1, did the Plaintiff say the words (or words to that effect): “In the age of the tape recorder, you want to know how I am able to get a transcript of what you said?”
@spin doctor.
Government is not comparable to oppositions or citizens. It is elected and paid to carry out duties to serve the people. This is the most basic of principle of government. If you should have any doubt about this, then I suggest that you go back to read the standard definition of government in a dictionary or political book.
Now we look at what happen to all the major policies and principles of this government e.g. leadership, confucianism, pro-family culture, meritocracy, fairness, justice etc. What happen to the pillars of our policies so frequently boasted about to the world like leadership, meritocracy etc just to mention two. They have simply been used as dubious ideas for a government to rule the people with harsh and draconian policies of all sorts e.g. locking up oppositions with ISA, overtax and over-profiteer all public services owed to the people to accumulate profits or reserves for ministers to claim success and reward themselves skyhigh salaries. Meritocracy has merely been used as convenient shortcuts to rewards of elites connected to government to root for plum jobs like CEOs in GLCs. These are the results of our system of government and PM Lee has acknowledged them as mistakes or shortcomings which he will address during GE2011. What do we see after GE is over? A rehashing of the same PAPtocracy and PAPseudomocracy. What has changed? So do not try to blame all these on the oppositions or netizens who disagree with such PAPisifications. These are old tunes which will no longer work with netizens or the younger lot of citizens. Think out of the box. Go for real change!!!
@Robert Teh
Your line of thought is well known especially in the internet. You can find them plentiful here and now at TRE. Yahoo will find an even bigger and grumpier crowd. Nobody misses them even if one tries. As I have said earlier, the primary job of the opposition is to criticise and oppose the sitting government. If you do well at this, who knows, come 2016 the opposition will become the ruling party and the sitting government will take their place as opposition. All things are possible. Never discount them.
Only thing is, all participants must play by the rules.
Quote - "If you break the rules, then you must pay a forfeit. The rules can be changed but within the set of the game itself. If you try to change the rules outside of the framework itself you can also be taken to task severely(the rules prescribe for this). Anyone who does not like this must be reminded that as long as you agree to play with these rules you have no choice but to go along with it, and change them within the system." – unquote
So you see, you have got to acknowledge the basic principles of nation building first if you are to make sense in your posts in throwing so many dares back to the oppositions or critics. Now that you have conceded that the government should own up and accept these basic principles it is more palatable to start talking about finer points how to move forward with having better oppositions. I agree all must play by the rules. Again, you will notice that as you have said my views are well known in the internet, I will simply ask you whose rules? If you are referring to rules of a fair government one that is transparent and accountable governing by virtue and leadership by example, I have nothing more to add. If not, then again we may have people who know what is unfair and unjust and things got to be better done.
LKY's sycophants are at work, rubbishing everything about the SDP. The government subjects SDP to a media blackout except to print bad news when possible, about SDP. PAP spends a lot of money paying these sycophants and evesdroppers. Nobody believes the PAP government anymore. If the PAP is so confident of it's "greatness", then remove the monopoly of the mass media. Let other people have their say without fear of reprisal. By all accounts, LKY has made himself to be a demi-god. What he says, goes. And you cannot contradict him. Doing that would make you get sued for criminal defamation. This is what makes Singapore so much like N.Korea.
Chee Soon Juan, you said, "But we have never threatened editors of such sites with legal action".
May I suggest that you can't sue because you are a nonentity and do not have a repute to protect. You don't even have an MP in your party of "Straw-men".
@captain bigshot
I can assure you that anyone who contradicts Mr. Lee Kuan Yew will not be sued, not unless the contradiction is defamatory in nature.
And the PAP does not own nor monopolises the "mass media" as you put it. But, it should be said that our mainstream media is socially reponsible thus is very careful of what they present. Presumably they do work with the government in covering issues of public good, which is a good thing.