PM Lee and Roy
By Vernon Chan
 
This evening, blogger Roy Ngerng raised the full sum of $70,000 for his legal defense against prime minister Lee Hsien Loong. On 28 May 2014, the premier of Singapore filed his civil suit in the Singapore High Court, where the value of claims is above S$250,000.
PM Lee claims that Roy had defamed him in a post on his blog “The Heart Truths” alleging “criminal misappropriation” by the premier in the management of Singapore’s state pension fund, the Central Provident Fund [CPF]. The blogger acknowledged the defamatory nature of the article and issued a fomal apology. The two parties have nonetheless gone to court as a result of a breakdown in negotiations.
It is interesting to ask why hundreds, if not thousands of ordinary Singaporeans have decided to donate to Roy in amounts varying from $1 to $200, despite the blogger’s initial apology and statement. It would be more interesting to study the implication of this event for Singapore politics.
Setting new records?
In September 2012, Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, discharged himself from bankruptcy when his offer to pay $30,000 to Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong was accepted. This sum was raised in 10 days from the public via public donations through Paypal and bank transfer. Chee was originally declared a bankrupt for failing to pay the court-ordered $500,000 in total damages to the two leaders after losing his 2006 defamation battle.
In 2014, long before the High Court has even set aside a date to hear Mr Lee’s civil suit, the people of Singapore have raised more than double Chee’s sum in less than half the time for Roy, a self-described healthcare worker who doesn’t deny having defamed the PM.
It is probable that the PM’s popularity would suffer for initiating a costly defamation suit against Roy; Lee’s predecessors may have made their case, with varying successes, before an international audience and the domestic judiciary of the special necessity for the city-state’s political leaders to defend themselves rigorously against attacks on their reputation and integrity[1], but reactions to each defamation suit over the years prove that these legal actions remain deeply unpopular and disquieting.
This week, the deep waters of disquiet have risen into a very public rebuke of Mr Lee’s actions against Roy. The concern is not the extent of public anger this civil suit has inspired but the political implications. Believing that his integrity and reputation had been besmirched by Roy’s blog posts, Mr Lee finds the public putting its mouth and money in Roy’s corner—sufficient money to fund his entire legal defense. A blow has been dealt to the political fortunes of PM Lee. In any country, when the public acts in such a decisive manner against its prime minister, it is clear that his political and moral authority has taken a beating—and one cannot help but worry for the political longeivity of that office holder.
In the event that Roy loses the trial and PM Lee is awarded the damages and costs the High Court judges deem appropriate, and the public raises this amount in full in record time, it would be not just a second blow but an absolute public rebuke and humiliation from which a prime minister, as a political actor, cannot recover from.
It may in fact be time for Lee to expedite the political renewal process for both party and nation and step aside for a 4th generation leadership that hasn’t been rejected this thoroughly by the public outside of the ballot box.
An end to defamation suits as a political weapon?
Decades of defamation suits launched by PM Lee’s predecessors have turned these legal actions into a uniquely Singaporean institution. Yet these decades of careful, consistent, and persistent application have not conditioned the domestic and international public, the common people and the intelligentsia into acceptance of this fact. Defamation suits are seen by the public as a form of bullying and studied by very credible political scientists in peer-reviewed journals as a political weapon.[2] Roy’s raising of $70,000 in less than a week is no more and no less than a very public and open rejection and repudiation of the use of defamation suits by politicians. It also shows a growing sophistication of the Singapore public, who are sending loud messages to their leaders from outside the ballot box and other traditional consultative forums. In the New Normal, Singapore’s politians may still be attached to the old ways; its citizens clearly expect something entirely different.
——————–
[1]http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/panellists-discuss-lkys-use-defamation-lawsuits-and-isa
[2]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=defamation+weapon+singapore+political&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

新加坡公民涉运毒在越南被判死刑 我外交部提供领事援助

根据越南媒体报导,8月7日,越南西宁省法庭审理新加坡籍被告人佘伟汉(Cher Wei Hon译音) 非法贩运毒品一案。庭审结束后,法院判决佘伟汉死刑。 据了解,新加坡外交部告知新加坡英语媒体Mothership,已获悉上述案件,并联系佘伟汉家属,新加坡驻胡志明市总领事,已为后者提供领事协助。 本社在去年7月也曾报导这桩案件,佘伟汉(Cher Wei Han,音译)涉嫌和一名36岁的越南男子,于2019年6月29日,在柬越边界的西宁省(Tay Ninh)被逮捕。 两人当时乘着一辆本田轿车进入越南,但是他们的汽车行迹可疑,于是遭越南边界的执法人员下令下车。 执法人员缴获9957.27克冰毒,立即将两人扣留,并且充公他们的车辆和车内所有物件。 两人被查问时透露,他们原本要将车上的俗称冰毒的安非他命迷幻药送到胡志明市贩售。…

社论:新加坡政治领导层的五个“C”

本周日进行的人民行动党中央委员会改选,见证该党领导层从第三代交棒第四代领导团队的第一步。团队人事更动,但是,这个国家统治阶级的本质,始终离不开五个“C”。 第一个“C”,就是裙带关系“Cronyism”。 《经济学人》2016年度的裙带资本主义指数,显示我国紧随俄罗斯、马来西亚和菲律宾,排行第四。 敢问政商界中,有多少夫妻档、亲侄携手共进?精英们相互照应、将军被空降到一些机构高层中任职。即便李显龙总理早前在彭博社晚宴上受访时,不违言儿子若有意,他们有“从政的权利”。 赋权,正是裙带政治的副产品,柬埔寨的洪森在位33年,任人唯亲,让儿子和女婿手握大权以巩固其政权。当裙带政治加上相授权力,就是新加坡式的精英主义。 第二个“C”,则是利益冲突(Conflict of interest)。 讽刺的是,反对党也被发现涉及利益冲突。但是如果行动党或任何官联机构、市镇会出现利益冲突,却似乎变成了合法的行径。(例如行动党自身成立了电脑系统服务公司AIM,支援行动党市镇会) (2013年,许文远在国会首次承认,AIM是行动党唯一成立的公司,惟”不禁止市镇会与同政党有关系的个人或组织进行交易。“) 敢问,究竟有多少高职任命、工程和合约涉及利益冲突?当市镇会仅以两元价格把管理软件卖给AIM公司,难道政府没发现这是明显的利益冲突吗? 第三个“C”:自我监督(…

Electricity tariffs to drop by 3.3% in last quarter of 2019, Oct – Dec

The electricity tariff for the last quarter of 2019, between 1 October…

How fair is our criminal justice system?

~by: Teo Soh Lung~ The recent decision in the motion filed by…