Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits?
SINGAPORE - The most ubiquitous case in which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that A*STAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its scholarship holders into their PhD programs. A*STAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After A*STAR resorted to legal action, Mr Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was only two years after the incident that A*STAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its website.
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between A*STAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from the public. Some felt that A*STAR was justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against it. Thus, the pertinent question is - is it worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the speculations will continue unabated in the face of such non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking A*STAR as an example, it is known that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on A*STAR’s investments on scholarships and nurturing research talents is not publicly available. Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that A*STAR could have paid a certain amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse? It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization, there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the organization for taking extreme measures against powerless individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices. Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27105.1
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
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
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
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)