CASES IN SINGAPORE

From the Magazine | Press

A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY
IN SINGAPORE, FINES FOR AN ARTICLE ``SCANDALIZING'' THE JUDICIARY By MICHAEL S. SERRILL. SUBSCRIBE TO TIME PRINT E-MAIL MORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 1995 The defense argued that the article never mentioned Singapore. The prosecution insisted that ``reasonable readers'' would know exactly what the piece was all about. In the end, a Singapore court last week found a U.S. scholar and executives of the International Herald Tribune guilty of contempt for impugning the integrity of the judiciary. Judge Goh Joon Seng imposed a $6,900 fine on economist Christopher Lingle and smaller levies on the newspaper's publisher, its Asia editor, distributor and local printer. The dispute arose last October, when the Herald Tribune, which is headquartered in Paris and jointly owned by the Washington Post Co., the New York Times Co. and Whitney Communications, published an article by Lingle on its opinion page. Lingle, then a senior fellow in European studies at the National University of Singapore, wrote that ``intolerant regimes in the region reveal considerable ingenuity in their methods of suppressing dissent.'' Among several methods he listed was ``relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.'' The statement did not mention any country by name. Attorney General Chan Sek Keong contended that Lingle was clearly referring to Singapore. At last week's trial, Chan cited cases in which opposition politicians had been sued for libel by government officials and had in some instances been driven into bankruptcy. The article, he said, had to have referred to Singapore. Michael Richardson, the Herald Tribune's Asia editor, told the court he thought the article referred to China, North Korea and other communist or military regimes. Judge Goh, however, said he had ``no doubt'' that the reference was to Singapore and found the defendants, including Herald Tribune Publisher Richard McClean and a local printer, Singapore Press holdings, guilty of contempt for ``scandalizing the judiciary.'' Lingle was not present to hear the verdict. He resigned from the Singapore fellowship in mid-October after initial questioning by police and returned to the U.S. to seek another academic post. From his home in Atlanta, Lingle last week described the court case as a ``cynical political move.'' He added, ``It seems to me that my commentary could not scandalize Singapore's judiciary.'' He said he hoped to return to Singapore someday, but not until he was satisfied that the climate for individual freedom had improved. In Attorney General Chan's opinion, the case was never about freedom of speech. ``Lingle sees it as an attempt to intimidate him,'' he said at the trial. ``It is nothing of the kind. He has simply committed contempt of court by alleging the Singapore judiciary is compliant.'' In recent years, Singapore officials have been vigorous in responding to what they considered unfair coverage of the country in foreign newspapers and magazines. In some cases, the government has moved to temporarily limit local circulation of foreign publications, including, at one time or another, those of the Economist, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review and Time. Some journals have had their circulation curtailed for refusing to print detailed government responses to critical articles about Singapore without editing them.

With reporting by WILLIAM DOWELL/HONG KONG AND STACY PERMAN/NEW YORK

From the Jan. 30, 1995 issue of TIME magazine

Pub Date: 08/10/2005 Pub: ST Headline: Racist bloggers jailed By: Chong Chee Kin Notes: Pictures

Page: 1

Callous, reckless remarks can cause social disorder: Judge THE two young men who posted inflammatory racist and vicious remarks about Muslims and Malays on the Internet were given landmark jail sentences yesterday. Animal shelter assistant Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was convicted of two charges under the Sedition Act and jailed for one month. Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, an assistant marketing manager, was convicted of one charge under the Act and given a 'nominal' jail term of one day and fined the maximum of $5,000. Both pleaded guilty to all charges. Senior District Judge Richard Magnus noted that the remarks posted by Koh were 'particularly vile'. In imposing sentence, the judge reached back into the past and also noted current terrorism fears to point out the need for 'especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multi-cultural society'. Using the 1964 race riots to make a point, he said: 'Young Singaporeans, like the accused persons before this Court, may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues. 'They must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed.' He added that it is every Singaporean's duty to respect other races and religions. This is 'only appropriate social behaviour, independent of any legal duty, of every Singapore citizen and resident', he said. This is the basic ground rule of living here, he said, and the Sedition Act was meant to draw a 'red line on the ground' against such behaviour. Crossing this line harms not just a racial group, but the very fabric of society, and this was why a deterrent sentence was needed. The case, which became a major talking point and even drew comments from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last month, is being seen as a watershed moment in the arena of Internet expression. It was sparked by a letter to The Straits Times from Madam Zuraimah Mohammed, who asked if cab companies allow uncaged pets to be transported in taxis, after she saw a dog on a taxi seat. She was concerned because many Muslims in Singapore are forbidden by their faith to come into contact with a dog's saliva. In response, Koh posted 'highly inflammatory' remarks on his blog, or online journal. 'He spewed vulgarities at the Muslim Malay community, derided and mocked their customs and beliefs and profaned their religion,' Deputy Public Prosecutor Amarjit Singh said. One comment compared the Muslim religion to Satanism, while others were so extreme they cannot be printed. Lim posted similar, but less extreme, comments on an online dog lovers' forum. 'He (Lim) derided the practices of their faith, preached intolerance of their beliefs and used highly insulting words against their community,' DPP

Singh said. He stressed that the prosecution was not trying to police and regulate the Internet, but certain basic rules had to be followed to maintain order in Singapore's multi-ethnic society. After noting that both Koh and Lim had taken action to reduce the offensiveness of their acts by posting apologies on the Internet and in court, the judge closed with a stern warning. 'Bloggers who still have similar offending remarks are well advised to remove them immediately,' he said. 'The Court will not hesitate to impose... stiffer sentences in future cases.' cheekin@sph.com.sg APOLOGY FROM NICHOLAS LIM (above) 'If anything, this episode has shown me the true depths of understanding, acceptance and capacity for forgiveness that Islam and all good religions practice in general... my friends, Muslim and non-Muslims alike, have rallied around and shown support and forgiveness.' APOLOGY FROM BENJAMIN KOH (left) 'I realised that I'm behaving exactly and no better than... a fanatic. Every religion advocates peace, goodwill and tolerance, and in this I had largely forgotten my teachings... Once again, my many apologies for this... disgraceful act.'

OPPOSITION LEADER DECLARED BANKRUPT Reuters February 10, 2006 SINGAPORE By Fayen Wong See: Chee Soon Juan statement

PROMINENT Singaporean opposition leader was declared bankrupt on Friday, Feb 10, for failing

to make libel payments to two former prime ministers, a ruling that will bar him from contesting elections, his lawyer said. Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, lost a three-year legal fight against defamation suits brought by Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong in January 2005, and was ordered to pay S$500,000 ($306,000) in damages for a case dating back to the 2001 parliamentary elections.
"He was declared bankrupt. He is not appealing," Chee's lawyer M. Ravi told Reuters. The ruling was made in a closed-door bankruptcy petition hearing at the Singapore High Court. The ruling permanently bans Chee from running for parliament, as bankrupts are not allowed to contest elections. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is widely expected to call an early general election, possibly as soon as next month. Chee, a free-speech proponent, had already lost his right to contest the next general election after being fined S$3000 in 2002 for speaking in public without a permit. Anyone fined more than S$2000 (US$1230) is barred from standing in a general election for five years. Chee told reporters outside the court that he would remain politically active, despite not being able to contest elections. "Through the decades, opposition politicians have been, and continue to be, hounded, persecuted, and prosecuted by the PAP (People's Action Party) through the courts," Chee said in a statement read to reporters outside the court. Almost all of Singapore's leading opposition figures have faced legal action at some time by prominent members of the ruling PAP. Activists and critics such as rights group Amnesty International say that defamation lawsuits brought by Singapore leaders are designed to cripple the opposition. But Singapore's leaders say it is necessary to safeguard their reputations. Chee, a former university lecturer, was found guilty in August 2002 of defaming Lee and Goh during the run-up to the 2001 election by questioning their use of public funds. Known for his strong criticism of the government, Chee has had several clashes with the ruling party. In 1997, he was ordered to pay S$315,000 to a PAP member and two other parties after Chee said that his sacking from the university was politically motivated.

The PAP -- now led by Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister -- has dominated parliament since independence in 1965. It won 82 of 84 seats in November 2001 elections and has never lost more than four seats in any election. Chee's party has no seats.

Los Angeles Times, 4 March 1994

Ohio Youth to be Flogged in Singapore

By Charles P. Wallace Times Staff Writer
SINGAPORE -- In a case likely to strain U.S. relations with a longtime ally on the sensitive issue of human rights, a judge here Thursday sentenced an American teen-ager to be flogged six times with a rattan cane and to spend four months in prison for spray-painting cars and other acts of mischief. Michael P. Fay, 18, of Dayton, Ohio, was also ordered to pay a $2,230 fine after pleading guilty to two counts of vandalism, two counts of mischief and one count of receiving stolen property. Fay is believed to be the first American ever sentenced to be caned here. The punishment is far more severe than the word "caning" might imply. A half-inch-thick rattan cane that has been soaked in water is used; it is wielded by an official trained in martial arts. Prisoners often go into shock during caning, and the punishment leaves permanent scars on their buttocks. Fay, dressed in a blue T-shirt and dungarees, seemed stunned as the sentence was read in court. His mother let out a wail and burst into tears, while two dozen American teen-agers who packed the court cried and hugged each other.

[............]
Fay, a senior at Singapore-American School, a $10,000-a-year private school for the children of expatriate parents based in Singapore, admitted having been part of a group of boys from the school who spray-painted 18 cars last fall. He also admitted having tossed eggs at other cars and switching license plates. He admitted possession of stolen property: having in his room signs such as No Smoking and No Exit, which were stolen by the son of a Swedish diplomat. An Australian youngster facing similar charges in the case has already fled the country, forfeiting bail rather than face caning. A Malaysian youth who admitted to a smaller number of vandalism charges than Fay was sentenced in juvenile court Thursday to probation. A third youth, from Hong Kong, has pleaded not guilty and faces a trial. Under Singapore law dating back to efforts in the 1960s to curtail graffiti as a political weapon, caning is mandatory in cases of vandalism when an indelible substance is used. It is left to the court's discretion to determine whether the substance is considered indelible even if, as in this case, it was removed. District Judge F. G. Remedios said that while Fay had admitted his crimes and agreed to act as a prosecution witness in future trials against other teen-agers, his acts "could not be condoned as a display of growing pains and schoolboy pranks." Fay -- who was released Thursday on $48,000 bail while his lawyer prepares an appeal -- arrived in Singapore in 1992 to live with his mother and stepfather, an executive with the U.S. courier firm Federal Express.

An American lawyer who attended the trial said he believed that the Singapore government was using the case to send a warning to Singaporeans about the dangers of importing decadent Western ideas. The case has received greater prominence in the controlled Singapore press than do most murder trials. Singapore newspapers published letters calling for the teen-agers to be caned, and a police spokesman was quoted as saying that "punishment for those caught . . . must be sufficiently deterrent." Jim Doran, principal of Singapore-American School, said the Fay case had been like a "wake-up call" for other students. "In the past, Singapore society has been very permissive with our kids -- it was hands off," Doran said. "This was a radical, 180-degree departure. That was the shock." While Singapore recently has been increasingly tied to the United States for reasons of trade and national security, government ministers have taken pains lately to point up the cultural differences between Asia and the West. The hit television show "Beverly Hills 90210" was pulled from the government television channel because it was believed to convey approval for what was considered an unacceptable lifestyle. The government announced last month that video games will be subject to the same stringent censorship as films and videocassettes. Compared to cities in the West, Singapore has almost no problem with graffiti. Its subway system is kept in immaculate condition -- the country even banned chewing gum two years ago to avoid gum clogging the doors. The government believes that tough measures are justified by the country's crime statistics, which show Singapore to be one of the safest countries in the world. Caning is mandated in a number of what are considered particularly heinous crimes, which include rape and molestation but also a foreigner overstaying a tourist visa.
Copyright (c) 1994 Times Mirror Company

CRITICISMS

Singapore: Defamation suits threaten Chee Soon Juan and erode freedom of expression
"With defamation suits expected to be filed against an opposition leader, Chee Soon Juan, a general election campaign has once again been marked by the threat of politically-motivated libel actions, further restricting peaceful political activity and eroding the right to free speech," Amnesty International said today. While the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) have maintained overwhelming parliamentary majorities since independence in 1965, its leaders have launched a series of civil defamation suits against opposition figures, asserting that the respect of the electorate and their ability to govern depended on their determination to defend their reputations when allegedly defamed. Amnesty International has expressed concerns that this pattern of defamation suits has been both unnecessary and disproportionate and that, by undermining the requisite balance between the right to protection of reputation and the right to free speech, has amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to freely hold and peacefully express one's opinions. The misuse of defamation suits by PAP leaders has contributed to a climate of self-censorship in Singapore and restricted the right of those Singaporeans with dissenting opinions to participate freely and fully in public life. Dissenting political activity continues to be deterred and curbed by the knowledge that no PAP leader has ever lost a defamation suit against an opposition figure in court, and that heavy awards for damages have led to the financial ruin of prominent critics of the PAP. During the course of the current election campaign senior government ministers appeared to focus on discrediting Chee Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) claiming he was particularly unsuitable as a potential parliamentarian as he was "disloyal to Singapore" and was "slippery, tricky, a liar and a flawed character" who would be "demolished". Amnesty International remains gravely concerned that defamation suits have not solely been motivated by a legitimate desire to defend reputation but have been directed selectively at those considered politically "unacceptable" by the PAP. The 2001 Elections The PAP's hold on power was confirmed on the opening day of the election campaign with opposition candidates contesting only 29 of 84 parliamentary seats. Controversy then arose during the campaign when rival teams headed by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Chee Soon Juan met on 28 October during street electioneering in a contested constituency. Chee Soon Juan publicly challenged the Prime Minister and the government to explain and justify US$10 billion of loans previously offered to former President Suharto of Indonesia. Chee Soon Juan later apologised to the Prime Minister for the manner of his questioning and any personal offence caused by it. This and a subsequent apology was rejected, and Goh Chok Tong demanded a formal apology, damages and costs for the allegedly libellous attack on his "character, competence and integrity" as Prime Minister. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew made similar demands. Chee Soon Juan subsequently apologised as demanded, agreed not to repeat the allegations and to pay damages and costs to both ministers. A Pattern of Defamation Suits Amnesty International's concerns are aggravated by the history of previous defamation suits in Singapore, including those filed against opposition figures standing in the 1997 general elections. During this campaign PAP leaders sought to discredit Workers' Party parliamentary candidate Tang Liang Hong, publicly labelling him an "anti-Christian, Chinese chauvinist". In response Tang Liang Hong filed police reports asserting that these charges were untrue and had incited people to hate him. The PAP leaders listed in the police reports, alleging that they had been defamed through them, sued and were awarded damages of US$5.5 million, reduced on appeal to US$2.3 million. Tang Liang Hong, who had left the country shortly after the polls citing death threats and the need to organise his affairs for his legal defence, never returned to Singapore and was eventually declared bankrupt. At the same time suits were also filed against then Workers' Party leader JB Jeyaretnam, a veteran opponent of the PAP whom Lee Kuan Yew in 1986 said had to be politically "destroyed" as he was against the system. JB Jeyaretnam's by-election victory in 1981 had broken the PAP's sixteen year parliamentary monopoly, but in 1986 he was expelled from parliament after being found guilty of misuse of party funds following court judgements which the Privy Council in London - then Singapore's highest court of appeal - severely criticized as unjust. Despite the Privy Council's call for redress Jeyaretnam remained barred from standing for re-election until 1997, when he was returned to parliament as a non-constituency member. He was then sued for allegedly defaming Goh Chok Tong, Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP leaders during an election campaign rally by saying the words "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his people". In his suit against JB Jeyaretnam Goh Chok Tong was awarded S$20,000 increased on his appeal to

S$100,000 plus costs. Amnesty International representatives observed both trial and appeal and expressed concerns at apparent political motives behind the suits, and aspects of the judgments. In 1998 Goh Chok Tong began bankruptcy proceedings against JB Jeyaretnam and concerns mounted that the government's intention was to drive JB Jeyaretnam into bankruptcy, and thereby effect his automatic expulsion from parliament. However the Prime Minister later suspended bankruptcy proceedings, agreeing to accept payment of the damages in installments. He subsequently discontinued demands with S$31,000 remaining unpaid (though demands for this sum were restored in September 2001). As expectation mounted that elections would be called in 2001 the threat of JB Jeyaretnam's bankruptcy and expulsion from parliament re-emerged in late 2000 when Goh Chok Tong's co-plaintiffs including Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP members, took steps to revive their 1997 suits which had not yet come before the courts. Shortly afterwards another group of plaintiffs (including PAP leaders) involved in two libel actions deriving from a 1995 Workers' Party newspaper article, demanded payment of damages awarded to them. Under intense financial pressure JB Jeyaretnam was pushed into bankruptcy in January 2001. His court appeals against the bankruptcy order and against Lee Kuan Yew's attempts to revive the 1997 suits were rejected in July 2001. As a bankrupt, JB Jeyaretnam was expelled from parliament, barred from practising as a lawyer and prevented from standing as a candidate in the 2001 elections or taking any active part in the campaign. For further information please see the following documents on www.amnesty.org - Singapore: International trial observer to attend Court of Appeal as former opposition leader JB Jeyaretnam faces possible expulsion from parliament (AI Index: ASA 36/05/2001) 20 July 2001 - Singapore: JB Jeyaretnam - Defamation suits assault freedom of expression (AI Index: ASA 36/05/98) 22 July 1998. - Singapore: JB Jeyaretnam - the use of defamation suits for political purposes (AI Index: ASA 36/04/97) 15 October 1997. \ENDS public document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW web : http://www.amnesty.org

Is S'pore's legal system getting a bad name?

Straits Times: Perspective: Oct 25, 1997. HUMAN rights groups denigrate it as being 'compliant'. Yet competitiveness and business ratings rank it highly. Just what accounts for this difference in the way Singapore's legal system is viewed by others? Chua Mui Hoong explores the issue. A JUDICIARY that is "improperly compliant". Defamation laws used by the executive to stifle dissenting views. Abuse of the court process by government leaders. In the past few weeks, human rights groups and foreign media commentators have hurled these and other accusations at the Singapore legal system. And yet, just two months ago, Singapore's police and judiciary were rated tops by businessmen in Asia in a poll conducted by Hongkong-based research agency Political & Economic Risk Consultancy. Singapore's legal system also wins accolades in many areas and is rated routinely as one of the country's competitive assets. Is Singapore's legal system as oppressive as the human rights groups make it out to be? Or is it among the world's best, as competitiveness reports suggest? A closer look at the ratings and the criticisms will reveal some answers. The bouquets THERE is no doubt that Singapore rates highly, when it comes to economic competitiveness and in commercial litigation. The 1997 World Competitiveness Yearbook, compiled by the Lausanne-based International Institute for Management Development, ranked Singapore first in legal framework, ahead of Hong Kong, New Zealand and Malaysia, respectively, for being "supportive of the competitiveness of the economy". The rival World Competitiveness Report put out by the Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) rated Singapore's legal system fourth, a notch ahead of Britain (fifth), Australia (14th) and the United States (16th). The criteria? Effectiveness in enforcing commercial contracts. In addition, academics point out that judgments from Singapore courts and Singaporeans' academic articles in law journals have been cited by the Privy Council and the English Court of Appeal, and in the highest courts in Canada and Australia. Singapore has also been innovative and progressive in encouraging arbitration and mediation in commercial and family disputes, and the courts are efficient. But a closer look unveils some other, not-so-glowing perceptions.

In the WEF report, Singapore ranked only 22nd -- alongside Malaysia, and below Hongkong (first), India (18th), and South Africa (19th) -- in the indicator called "impartiality of arbitration". For this indicator, respondents were asked if they agreed that "private businesses can readily file lawsuits at independent and impartial courts if there is a breach of trust on the part of the government." In the IMD's report, Singapore, in fact, slipped 10 notches in the sub-indicator on justice, defined as confidence in the fair administration of justice in the society, from fourth last year to 14th this year. In comparison, a July survey of companies here found that 97 per cent said that the courts here administered justice fairly, regardless of who the parties were. So, some minor question marks aside, the overall standing of Singapore's legal system continues to win the confidence of foreigners, especially those with substantial financial stakes in this country. As Nominated Member of Parliament Shriniwas Rai notes, the best accolade to the legal system here is the steady stream of investments coming in each year. However, human rights groups appear less enamoured of the judicial system. The brickbats AS CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer Kevin Tan notes: "What human rights groups and international nongovernmental organisations criticise is our public law record, meaning things such as constitutional law, criminal law, anything involving the state. They are not concerned with the commercial areas, as our record is very good for dealing with these matters." In the late 1980s, Singapore drew flak for its arrest of activists, under the Internal Security Act, who were said to be hatching a Marxist plot to overthrow the government. But this has died down as the use of the ISA declined. Singapore's tough laws against crimes too have led to charges that it metes out sentences disproportionate to the offence, for example, caning for vandalism in the Michael Fay case. But this is a grey area even among people living in the west, and there are examples of some of these laws being adopted later in one form or another in western countries, such as heavy fines for littering. The latest bone of contention with Singapore springs from the growing number of defamation suits brought by People's Action Party leaders against political opponents and Western publications. The gist of the complaints, led mainly by human rights groups, is that the PAP is silencing political dissent in Singapore by suing its critics, and winning large awards, over fairly innocuous comments. It was Queen's Counsel George Carman, whose salt-and-pepper looks belied his penchant for verbal histrionics, who put the charges most dramatically in open court in August, when he defended Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam in the defamation suit brought by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. He said: "First, you pay lip service of having the full rights of a democracy like there are in the Western countries, in Australia and others ... with freedom of speech, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and freedom of opposition. But there comes a point when you adapt that for your own purpose in Singapore to stay in power and to stifle opposition." The means creating in the minds of many people in Singapore a "degree or climate of fear" and using the courts to obtain large awards of damages to "financially oppress" political opponents.

The same allegations surfaced in reports of human rights groups -- the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Amnesty International -- which both observed the trial. Indeed, the ICJ went one step further in accusing the Singapore courts of continuing its reputation of being "improperly compliant" to the interests of the PAP. Amnesty International noted that the judiciary "has not moved to check the executive's misuse of the law" in bringing defamation suits to intimidate Singaporeans holding dissenting views. Asked why these human rights groups were focusing on Singapore, observers suggest these groups may be broadening their agenda. Instead of picking on flagrant abuses such as shootings or imprisonment, they were now on the lookout for what they perceived as more invidious trends. Singapore has come under close scrutiny precisely because it presented an alternative -- and viable -"model" for development, one which combined economic success with an orderly, disciplined society and which would appeal to more communitarian societies. As NMP and law lecturer Simon Tay said: "The human rights groups are also proselytising, and their concern is that the Singapore experience will be replicated the world over, unless its weaknesses are made public." The real issue AT THE same time, a close look at the criticisms levelled by Amnesty International, and Mr Carman in court, indicates that the criticisms are directed not so much at Singapore's legal system per se as against the PAP government's use -- and alleged misuse -- of the court process. The root of their displeasure is, in fact, the way society is organised in Singapore, in the way the courts have struck a balance between free speech and protecting reputations; and, by extension, in the way society has found a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting the community's interests. Hence, Singapore courts' decisions on where to strike the balance between allowing free speech and safeguarding the reputations of political leaders have been criticised for veering too much towards the latter. Clearly, these decisions differ from country to country. In the US, public figures are open to any criticism made without malice, while the European Court of Human Rights' has decided that "the limits of acceptable criticism" are wider for a politician than for a private individual. Dr Kevin Tan sums up the issue this way: "In public law, human rights groups feel the courts have been overly deferential to the Executive. "By deferential I do not mean they are biased, or compliant, but that, between two possible choices, greater benefit of the doubt is given to the executive than to the individual or any other group. There is a generally conservative approach to adjudication." Law academic Thio Li-Ann, in an article in the Hong Kong Law Journal, argues that the courts here have tended to award "communitarian" judgments, and have been "deferential towards collective interests and executive assessments of what the public good requires".

She cites several examples, including the 1995 (Colin Chan vs PP) decision upholding an order to deregister the Jehovah's Witnesses group on the grounds of protecting public order, despite the constitutional protection of religious freedom. In like vein, she notes, the courts here have tended to protect the public interest of upholding the integrity of government leaders, rather than make judgments that protect the right of individuals to make public criticisms of conduct by public figures. Indeed, far from allowing greater latitude in criticisms of politicians, the courts here have tended to accept the argument that, because politicians are well-regarded here, they deserve higher damages to protect and vindicate their reputations. Mr Rai, who is also a lawyer, agrees generally with this approach, but adds a caveat. He thinks politicians, on their part, as public figures, should "hold their hand" and sue judiciously. Mr Tay argues that high damages for defamation might have the "unintended consequences" of silencing critics, and suggests that a cap on damages, an unreserved apology, and a formal declaration by someone in authority that there were no grounds for the defamatory statement, could suffice to vindicate reputations. The government's position on this is unequivocal. It believes that protecting the reputation and integrity of the political leadership is of the utmost importance, and that the consequences of not doing so extend far beyond the courtroom. This was how Mr Goh put it when he was cross-examined by Mr Carman in August: "We are a different society. In Singapore, we believe that leaders must be honourable men, gentlemen or junzi (a Confucian gentleman), and if our integrity is attacked, we defend it." This was unlike Western societies, where politicians might not do anything if their integrity was attacked, he added. "But here, if leaders and politicians do not defend their integrity, they are finished ... So, each time our integrity is impugned, we come out strongly and go to the courts to defend it. If you do not do that, over time, politics in Singapore is going to degenerate into politics like some other countries where leaders are called liars and cheats and nothing is done." What should Singaporeans make of all these? The first, and most important, point is that the Singapore legal system continues to be highly regarded and well-respected, despite the efforts of western human rights groups to cast doubts on it. The second issue concerns the use of the courts by politicians here to defend their reputations when they are impugned. It is an issue which goes far beyond the legal system, touching on the very core of the political system here. Whether the government's approach will prevail will depend on its ability to continue winning the political ground, and to demonstrate to Singaporeans that it is right. It has, so far -- which is why it is so tough-minded about it. Meanwhile, human rights groups will continue to mount their attacks. But their criticisms, while providing some food for thought, are really a sideshow.

The Sedition Act

Seditious tendency.
(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government; (b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established; (c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore; (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency (a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures; (b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; (c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or (d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency. [edit]

Provision against racist comments

Subsection 3 of the Act describes the types of publication that have seditious tendency and these includes publication that "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes". Singapore takes social cohesion and racial harmony in the country seriously because of its history of racial riots in the 1960s. More recent events of racial violence in neighbouring Indonesia in the late 1990s and early 2000s also serve as reminders of potential inter-racial conflicts in the region.