Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse

Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse

In his article entitled “Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics”, Mr Kelvin Teo attempts to make the spurious argument that defamation suits might improve the quality of political discourse by forcing concerned parties to focus on what he terms “pertinent issues”, as opposed to “character labelling of their rivals”.

Citing Mr Low Thia Khiang’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s almost exclusive attention on bread-and-butter issues during the 2006 General Elections, such as the price increases for government-regulated services or the issue of means testing at hospitals, Mr Kelvin Teo asserts that if opposition groups focus these issues as a “safe bet” (in order to avoid being sued), “the PAP will also be forced back to the policy drawing board in addressing the opposition’s points”, and the electorate will be spared “all the taunting and colourful labelling”.

When I read Mr Teo’s article, I almost thought it was pulled directly from the Straits Times, or The New Paper, or one of their ilk, but alas, it was written by an NUS alumni, “one of my own kind”, so to speak. I was saddened.

I am not familiar enough with politics in neighbouring countries to comment on how politicians there employ defamation suits, but it is my honest stand that in Singapore, the ruling elite uses defamation suits not as a way of promoting civilized discourse or constructive commentary, but as a way of silencing political dissent that they deem a threat to their own power.

Far from promoting intelligent dialogue of national issues, the liberal use of politically motivated defamation suits injures free speech, does serious damage to the national discourse, and undermines our public institutions. The result is that constructive criticism itself becomes curtailed as individuals practise self-censorship out of fear rather than out of a sense of responsibility and a desire for credibility.

Defamation law certainly has a valid place in our legal system. Individuals and organizations sometimes need recourse to defamation law to protect their reputations and livelihood from unwarranted slander and unjust attacks. But when defamation law is used by the ruling elite not to defend a legitimate legal claim but to advance their own selfish political interests at the expense of the rights of others, that abuse must be highlighted and strongly denounced.

Responsible commentary should be promoted first and foremost by the use of community moderation and positive reinforcement rather than the blunt stick of the defamation suit. The latter should only be employed as a last resort when the perpetrator of the defamatory remarks clearly has no intention of acknowledging his error and insists on continuing his unjustified attacks regardless of the truth. To suggest that defamation suits are a valid means of promoting good dialogue is to regard citizens as politically and socially immature brats who are unable to exercise good judgment.

The use of politically motivated defamation suits do not lead people to think that the defendant is in the right and the alleged perpetrator must be in the wrong. Rather, they only serve to force resentment underground, increasing the internal stresses between citizens and Government that hurt the fabric of the political landscape and society as a whole.

As for Mr Teo’s claim that the PAP will be forced back to the drawing board in answering the points that opposition parties raise, I personally have yet to see the PAP back down or revise their policies in response to criticism or suggestions from the opposition.

More often than not, it is PAP MPs themselves who argue even more vociferously than the Opposition members in Parliament, only to be predictably given the cold shoulder by the key decision makers in cabinet. (SEE: Dr Lily Neo speaks out vociferously over aid for poorest households.)

The ruling party also sometimes co-opts ideas from Opposition parties without giving due credit to them. (SEE: PM and PAP MPs adopt SDP’s economic ideas.)

Finally, Mr Kelvin Teo’s article seems to imply that the likes of Dr Chee Soon Juan, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong were “thrown into the abyss of bankruptcy” because they are ”missionary school boys” who engaged in character assassination, taunting or colourful labelling.

I will simply let the truth speak for itself as I am now at a complete loss for words.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26264.1