It is generally observed that political parties in Singapore play a huge role in setting the media agenda, influencing the content of the media content and could possible have induced media owners to practice self-censorship.
In the last three decades, Singapore’s ruling party have brought more than a dozen defamation suits against opposition parties and the media. These cases usually concern statements made by the opposition or published in various publications that do not favour the ruling party. The ruling party has succeeded in every defamation case against the opposition to financially cripple them and destroying their political careers. The defendants are usually made bankrupts and in some instances, even fled the country in exile. Publishers being sued have either been made to pay hefty damages or publish unqualified apologies as well as having their publications banned from circulation in Singapore. These continuous string of defamation actions as aforesaid has caused the general public to be very cautious in expressing their views. This subject matter has received great attention internationally and Singapore has been strongly criticized in this regard by foreign Courts and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International.
The Singapore Government has also been active in using defamation to control the media including foreign publications such as Asian Wall Street Journal, the Far Eastern Economic Review (“FEER”), the International Herald Tribune and The Economist. In every case, the publications carried statements not favouring the Singapore Government or members of the ruling party. Under the pressures of defamation actions, the respective publications have either been ordered to pay heavy damages or publish unqualified apologies, and in some instances, their circulation was also banned in Singapore.
Another case in point is former NUS senior lecturer, Mr. Christopher Lingle, who wrote an essay entitled “The Smoke over Parts of Asia Obscures Some Profound Concerns” that was published in the International Herald Tribune. The article mentioned about ‘the government relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians in suppressing dissent’. Although no country was named in the article, Mr. Christopher Lingle was still sued for defamation by the ruling party who went to great lengths to prove that he was indeed writing on Singapore in his article. This eventually led to him fleeing the country.
Moving on, in Year 2000, a Speakers’ Corner was set up in Hong Lim Park to provide an avenue for the public to voice their opinions. There were about 400 speakers registering to speak in the first year but this number dwindled to 26 by 2006. This is because one must obtain a permit with the Police before being allowed to speak. All statements will also be recorded and may be used in defamation suits against the speaker. The Speakers’ Corner has ironically become the best example of how freedom of speech is suppressed under the fear and threat of defamation.
Also interesting to note here is the Internal Security Act (Chapter 143) which is the other tool the Singapore Government employs against oppositions and dissidents. The Act provides for imprisonment without judicial approval, which gives the Government the power to detain citizens arbitrarily and indefinitely without trial. One of the landmark cases in which the Act was invoked by the Government was ‘Operation Spectrum’ in 1987 where several people were arrested for conspiring in a Marxist plot to overthrow the Government. Mr. Francis Seow, former Solicitor-General of Singapore, was also detained under the Act when he attempted to represent those arrested as aforesaid. This 1987 case attracted great attention worldwide and the Singapore Government received strong international criticisms for violation of human rights. It is speculated that under such international pressure which arose from this 1987 case, the Singapore Government exercised more reservations thereafter in invoking the Internal Security Act, and thereon relied more on defamation as their primary weapon to stifle dissent.
The apparent freedom of speech is being restrained and suppressed, and people have the tendency to refrain from expressing their thoughts and views in fear of being sued for defamation, causing the 'spiral of silence'. The use of defamation also inevitably control and alter the public’s expression of their views and opinions. The past defamation cases against print publications also influences and affects media coverage, and causing media owners and reporters to exercise self-censorship. It is only with hope that in time to come, Singaporeans will be given greater freedom of speech to express themselves freely with no reservations.
In the last three decades, Singapore’s ruling party have brought more than a dozen defamation suits against opposition parties and the media. These cases usually concern statements made by the opposition or published in various publications that do not favour the ruling party. The ruling party has succeeded in every defamation case against the opposition to financially cripple them and destroying their political careers. The defendants are usually made bankrupts and in some instances, even fled the country in exile. Publishers being sued have either been made to pay hefty damages or publish unqualified apologies as well as having their publications banned from circulation in Singapore. These continuous string of defamation actions as aforesaid has caused the general public to be very cautious in expressing their views. This subject matter has received great attention internationally and Singapore has been strongly criticized in this regard by foreign Courts and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International.
The Singapore Government has also been active in using defamation to control the media including foreign publications such as Asian Wall Street Journal, the Far Eastern Economic Review (“FEER”), the International Herald Tribune and The Economist. In every case, the publications carried statements not favouring the Singapore Government or members of the ruling party. Under the pressures of defamation actions, the respective publications have either been ordered to pay heavy damages or publish unqualified apologies, and in some instances, their circulation was also banned in Singapore.
Another case in point is former NUS senior lecturer, Mr. Christopher Lingle, who wrote an essay entitled “The Smoke over Parts of Asia Obscures Some Profound Concerns” that was published in the International Herald Tribune. The article mentioned about ‘the government relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians in suppressing dissent’. Although no country was named in the article, Mr. Christopher Lingle was still sued for defamation by the ruling party who went to great lengths to prove that he was indeed writing on Singapore in his article. This eventually led to him fleeing the country.
Moving on, in Year 2000, a Speakers’ Corner was set up in Hong Lim Park to provide an avenue for the public to voice their opinions. There were about 400 speakers registering to speak in the first year but this number dwindled to 26 by 2006. This is because one must obtain a permit with the Police before being allowed to speak. All statements will also be recorded and may be used in defamation suits against the speaker. The Speakers’ Corner has ironically become the best example of how freedom of speech is suppressed under the fear and threat of defamation.
Also interesting to note here is the Internal Security Act (Chapter 143) which is the other tool the Singapore Government employs against oppositions and dissidents. The Act provides for imprisonment without judicial approval, which gives the Government the power to detain citizens arbitrarily and indefinitely without trial. One of the landmark cases in which the Act was invoked by the Government was ‘Operation Spectrum’ in 1987 where several people were arrested for conspiring in a Marxist plot to overthrow the Government. Mr. Francis Seow, former Solicitor-General of Singapore, was also detained under the Act when he attempted to represent those arrested as aforesaid. This 1987 case attracted great attention worldwide and the Singapore Government received strong international criticisms for violation of human rights. It is speculated that under such international pressure which arose from this 1987 case, the Singapore Government exercised more reservations thereafter in invoking the Internal Security Act, and thereon relied more on defamation as their primary weapon to stifle dissent.
The apparent freedom of speech is being restrained and suppressed, and people have the tendency to refrain from expressing their thoughts and views in fear of being sued for defamation, causing the 'spiral of silence'. The use of defamation also inevitably control and alter the public’s expression of their views and opinions. The past defamation cases against print publications also influences and affects media coverage, and causing media owners and reporters to exercise self-censorship. It is only with hope that in time to come, Singaporeans will be given greater freedom of speech to express themselves freely with no reservations.
9 comments:
...very heavy topic.
All I can say is that our government is a very smart one who knows where to attack so that it will hurt the most. I am just worried that there will be an abuse of the ISA. It was originally used against the communists in Singapore, but now...I do not really see the relevance. Oh well. I shall not say anything more.
You would be interested to note that blogs, the newest media platform, has not been spared. The spats of high-handed actions taken by Philip Yeo, highflying civil servant and former scholar, against young bloggers more than half his age in the name of defaming him immediately comes to mind. Also, podcasts were banned during our last General Elections. And just last month across the causeway in Malaysia, a local Malaysian blogger was arrested under Malaysia's ISA for his bloggings. So, contrary to what many would like to believe, the internet is not as free and anonymous as you might think it is. Times and technology may have changed but one can't help but feel that George Orwell's novel 1984 still holds true some 60 years after it was written; "Big Brother" is still watching.
kyun: All I can say is that our government is a very smart one who knows where to attack so that it will hurt the most. I am just worried that there will be an abuse of the ISA. It was originally used against the communists in Singapore, but now...I do not really see the relevance.
Like to point out that there ARE already abuses.
The "communists" you are refering to were opposition politicians. They were detained without trial by the PAP govt with the help of the British. Till this day they were never charged and there is no evidence to suggest they are commies. On the other hand, recently declassified documents from the British govt proves that the detention was politically motivated rather than a Commie threat.
Another recent abuse is the Marxist Conspiracy in the 80s.
Isn't it funny that we feel "free" when we really aren't?
actually i think that in Singapore, if the government were to allow a greater freedom of speech, i highly doubt that many will still step out to express themselves. being singaporeans, there is the issue of "face", whether we'll embarrass ourselves and whether we'll face others' judgement.
the gatekeepers..i like the title.
freedom ain't that free since the boundaries are set by them for us. nowadays, the generation rising up is more active and vocal to life. for what is worth, they would dare to speak if only no damage is brought to their name or career.
i agree that there shld be greater freedom in years to come, freedom that will not be accompanied by fear.
Given current society, people are usually more self-centered and shun away from unnecessary attention and troubles. So i guess its not an important thing to have freedom of speech in Singapore.
Heavy topic indeed.
whilst reading, a lot came into my mind. as i am typing, i feel that i have so much to express but i couldn't do so.
that's how restricted i feel.
what is right and wrong seems quite to be a blank already.
since almost anything can be sued against on, there isn't really much of a freedom of speech anymore.
honestly, speaker's corner was a b******t. it seems more like a place for people to shoot right at their own face sometimes.
yes, i agree with chin hao. blogs aren't spared as well.
some sort of a "space to call my own - i say what i want because it's my blog!" what a joke.
anyway,
i think i should stop.
Indeed the freedom of speech in this country is so restricted.
So much of having a Speakers's corner which is only for 'show'. Having only a corner with nobody coming up to speak out their mind, with fear of what may happen next. Let alone allowing outdoor public demonstration in Hong Lim Park that was mentioned in this year national rally.
Will anyone go? I doubt.
Post a Comment