Reform in the UK, regression in Singapore

Home

News

Singapore

Tuesday, 01 June 2010

Singapore Democrats

In a recent article that may have escaped the attention of many in Singapore, Mr Anthony Lester QC wrote in The Times how the antiquated English law of defamation is strangulating free speech (watch video below). Mr Lester, or Lord Lester, argues that the law is archaic and benefits only a small elite clique.

This, of course, has much to do with Singapore where Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his fellow ministers are wont to use defamation laws which we adopted lock, stock and barrel from England against the opposition despite claims that we are an Asian society that eschews confrontational politics.

Anthony Lester, QC Lord Lester has introduced a bill that would reform the law of defamation in England. With the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition government with the Conservatives, the silk (a peer of the Lib Dems) opines that the time is ripe for reform of the law:

The Lib-Con coalition promises a review of the libel laws to protect freedom of speech. It is long overdue. English libel law is notoriously costly, complicated and stifling of free speech. Now, in the face of pressure from internet publishing and the public outcry about scientists, authors and human rights groups being sued, we have a welcome consensus on the need for reform. The time is over-ripe for Parliament to replace our archaic law with one that gives stronger protection to the freedom to share information and ideas and that is fit for the 21st century.

Back to Singapore. While touting our island-republic as an Asian country with Asian values (read as the PAP having the mandate of heaven to do anything and everything in order to rule to infinity and beyond), the ruling party has no qualms in applying old England to modern Singapore.

Lord Lester's intervention in the UK Parliament will bring old English laws up to date to fit modern and changing times. This, however, is one upgrade that Mr Lee and colleagues will be in no hurry to carry out in Singapore. The reason is plain: The English law, however archaic, suits them.

To be sure Lord Lester is no stranger to Singapore's politico-legal scene. In the late 1980s, the QC was Ms Teo Soh Lung's counsel. Ms Teo was arrested in 1987 under the Internal Security Act for being part of a Marxist plot.

The Singapore Government subsequently moved to bar the silk from entering Singapore to represent Ms Teo.

The tragedy is that while the rest of the modern and democratic world continue to prepare their societies to embrace and compete in an environment where change is the constant, Singapore is stuck with an regime bent on holding on to power even if it means holding the country back.

While governments amend laws to empower their peoples even more, PAP introduces the Public Order Act to prohibit even one person to protest in public.

Its recent effort to criminalise activities that "demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" sound like a medieval decree from a paranoic monarch completely out of touch with reality.

Such political anachronism will be another nail in the coffin that already entombs the soul and spirit of this country. It will be the wound that continues to bleed the life out of our republic. As if our political culture, and together with it our economic and social dynamism, are not moribund enough.

Lord Lester's move to reform the law of defamation will do the UK and its people a world of good. This is where democracy is so essential for a modern society. It allows for mistakes to be rectified and obsolete laws to be changed.

The answer is clear: For our own good, Singapore needs to change. The question is: Are Singaporeans paying attention?

Share this article:

Comments (4)

Tue 01 Jun 2010 10:05 AM | Tan Tai Wei

This is not directly relevant to this posting but may be worth noting.

There is something questionable about the huge amounts in damages our judges awarded LKY and others against opposition politicians.

As PAP and the media had made it a public presumption, opposition politicians weren't creditable.

And yet judges had always awarded LKY and others many hundreds of thousand dollars in "damages" and "aggravated damges" to their reputations. Even where the "libellous" sayings or writings were agreed to be not clearly damaging, counsels and judges had appealed to the meaning the public would give them in granting the "damages".

But if they were not creditable, what damage could their "libels" inflict? Then why the huge "damages" awarded?

Tue 01 Jun 2010 10:49 AM | yoojinchil

Wonderful article.Many good points made.Keep this up, fellas at SDP.

The PAP has already shown that it is willing to resort to anything just to keep itself in power.Even if their actions contradict what they had said.Shame on them.Gone is the PAP of 1959 when they had symbolised high idealism,integrity and moral values.Gone are those of S.Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee.The PAP has now become either the People's Arrogant Party or the Lee's Action Party.

Whatever happens to me,I'm not going cast my vote for the PAP of 2010.

Tue 01 Jun 2010 2:48 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Let me put my above point in another way.

Surely when LKY and others pressed for damages and aggravated damages through their counsels, they did not really believe there had been any real serious damage? For surely they were serious in their belittling the creditability of Jeya and others, and more recently, Chee?

So, were they insincere in court, and "lied under oath" in pretending that their reputation had been seriously damaged?

Take, for instance, the case where Chee shouted to Goh "Where is our money?"

Now, those who knew enough to take Chee with any seriousness at all would know he waa only referring to Goh's promise of financial help to Suharto. Suharto's being found to be corrupt subsequently raised the issue of the possibility of Singapore having lost money on that count.

The point, however, is that, whatever Chee meant or could be taken to mean, surely Goh did not seriously believe that Chee had so much creditability among the electorate as to be able to cause the slightest damage to his and government's reputation. Chee, after all, had for years been told by government, through the media, to be a "liar and cheat".
Surely, Goh and government didn't think our mass media was so ineffective?

So, were they and their counsels lying and trying to cheat when they pressed for damages and aggravated damages in court? Remember also that, being dressed in white, they should be morally, and not just legally right.

Fri 04 Jun 2010 8:55 AM | quantum - Where is our money?

This is basically an issue of transparency, is it not?

Please login or register to post your comments.

Joomla components by Compojoom

Act Now

The SDP National Healthcare Plan


pdf link Executive Summary Facebook Public Consultation

SDP Publictaions

Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here

pdf link


pdf link


Get a copy

Danny the Democracy Bear


Now available online here!

Singapore Democrats on Facebook

Awesome Words

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.”

César Estrada Chávez

Login

News feeds

Singapore Democrats