TR EMERITUS

By David Wu, Guest Columnist

‘What is Singapore’s national costume?’

I could not think of a satisfactory answer to my friend’s question, since there are so many types of dress that Singaporeans can identify with.

Then came the perhaps unsurprising answer: ‘The defamation suit of course!’

Chee Soon Juan, the self-termed Singapore rebel, is probably the synonym for the defamation action in modern day Singapore. While I am not going to proceed to discuss the merits of his pursuits, I will put forth a case why ignoring his often exaggerated remarks may be the better solution.

If you seek the advice of any lawyer, he would probably advise you that a pauper like Chee is not worth suing. He is already bankrupt and is therefore not afraid of any additional sanction that seeks to deprive him of his possessions. What he would probably fear losing, I would think, is exactly what these defamation suits give him: the attention of the public.

The media coverage on Chee has always been focused on his brushes with the law, and thus inadvertently bringing attention to his cause and beliefs. While the man may believe himself to be a martyr, it is difficult to connect his position with someone like Gandhi or Aung San Suu Kyi, since not many would pay attention to his preachings if he was left alone. The only similarity between them is perhaps that they were all subject to government prosecution, something that arguably is Chee’s presently most valuable possession. Chee ingeniously uses the courtroom as his soapbox, and his portal to influence public opinion. It is therefore not a surprise that he commits the offence of defamation over and over again, to the extent that some may think he actually enjoys it.

In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the British government banned a book called the Spycatcher, written by an ex-MI5 agent Peter Wright, in which he made bold claims about the misdoings of the government. The book itself might not have gotten much readership if left alone, and the few who did read it might not have believed its contents. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm the authorities showed to prevent the book from being published made everyone curious about what they wanted to hide. The book went on to become an international best-seller, published in every other country but the United Kingdom.

If the defamation suits did any good besides depriving Chee of his materialistic possessions, it would have been the fact that doubts are raised in the public mind about the veracity of his claims. Why would the government pay so much attention to silencing him if it was just baseless nonsense? It is human nature to be curious about what we are prevented from knowing, even when most of the time we would admit that if we knew in the first place we probably wouldn’t have bothered to find out. Moreover, the government’s attempts to silence Chee merely made him a fighter for the freedom of speech in the eyes of Western media.

The American philosopher Thomas Scanlon believed that an essential part of a democracy is that citizens should be given the autonomy to receive information freely and evaluate its truth for themselves. Although most of us would agree that it is necessary for the government to protect society from dangerous racist hate speech or the promotion of terrorism, we would also agree that the public is capable to make the correct judgement in Chee’s case. The times have changed since the threat of Communist sedition and the significant improvement in education standards means that the majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to distinguish truth from falsity, especially in unsubstantiated claims such as Chee’s. Even if a minority of people believed these allegations, the importance of the right to the freedom of expression means that we should allow speech, especially when even more people might have believed it to be true if it was suppressed through prosecution. The free ‘marketplace of ideas’, as it is suggested in the United States, would mean that only the truth would emerge unscathed through the scrutiny of public opinion. The truth is naked, and it requires no additional help from the authorities. The Singapore government has often been criticised for being a nanny-state, and I believe that the populace has now matured enough to be not easily swayed by the boisterous claims of a demagogue.

Looking from the point of the defamed politicians, it is true that their reputations have been attacked. Nonetheless, the fact that they willingly entered into the public eye when they decided to run for office should mean a greater tolerance towards such accusations, and the willingness to put themselves up for public scrutiny to clarify matters. Moreover, even if only the false statements were censored, such liability to prosecution would have a ‘chilling effect’ on important investigative journalism or other constructive criticisms towards those in power. Such restraints against free speech would only be viewed as undemocratic, as were the Napoleonic laws prohibiting the criticism of government officials. John Stuart Mill has argued powerfully that the government should not have an ‘assumption of infallibility’ and allow criticisms on its policies, since they ‘ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.

The ability of the Singapore government is evident in its good governance and recognised throughout the world. Politicians should therefore not prevent accusations that are clearly not true, but rather to clarify these false claims to make their reputations even stronger. It is often that a sore-loser accuses the winner of cheating, but the true champion always chooses to take such allegations in his stride.

Comments are closed.