Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics

Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics

SINGAPORE - What do Dr Chee Soon Juan, the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong have in common? No prizes for guessing the obvious answer - all of them were at the receiving end of ruinous defamatory suits and thrown into the abyss of bankruptcy. No one is ever a supporter of political parties resorting to legal recourse against their opponents. Such a move merely stifles political debates and is a definite invitation to criticisms.

Amid the critiques, little attention is paid to the impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics. In fact, it can be ironically argued that defamation suits may end up being a positive selective pressure in improving the quality of political discourse. Why is this so? The reasoning is simple and really a matter of common sense. This will force the parties especially those from the opposition to focus on discussing pertinent issues.

The opposition definitely do not have any incentive to resort to character labelling of their rivals because that would open up the possibility of a ruinous defamation suit. Thus, sticking to discussion of national issues would be the safest bet. The PAP will also be forced back to the policy drawing board in addressing the opposition’s points. And the cut and thrust of an actual political debate will be played out for all to see, without all the taunting and colorful labelling.

This observation holds true in the case of Worker’s Party during the rallies of General Elections 2006. Mr Low Thia Kiang discussed the price increases for government-regulated services and the high costs of living. Miss Sylvia Lim brought up the issue of wards mean testing, asserting that its current implementation is not synchronous with the people’s concerns.

If one were to observe the typical Singapore electorate, a range of 10 - 20% of the voters are what you call diehard anti-PAP fans. These are the types who will vote for any entity who contests against the PAP. Thus, it is the remaining voters who will swing the outcome either side. And it is likely such voters would like to hear parties articulate on issues concerning them.

It is interesting to note that Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC has a high probability of seeing a contest after a long hiatus of walkovers. The key reason according to our mainsteam media is the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari under Mr Wong Kan Seng’s watch. The impression one gets from reading the mainstream media is that Mas Selamat’s escape might count against him, and that is why the opposition is targeting his GRC.

Our mainstream media may be a little narrow in its assessment. The topic of Mas Selamat’s escape is no longer a hot one. The first year anniversay of his escape has already passed. Yes, this may have cost Mr Wong Kan Seng some votes, but it is important not to be lulled into putting all the eggs into the Mas Selamat basket. At the end of the day, the majority of the voters at Bishan-Toa Payoh would like to hear the PAP and opposition debate on pertinent issues. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear Mr Wong, a Home Affairs minister, debate on other issues outside his security domain.

It seems likely that pertinent issues our nation is currently facing will be the focus of our next election. Debating real issues is the hallmark of political maturity, whilst missionary school boys interested in taunting their opponents should just be left at home!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25963.1