“ […] a further step in the insidious erosion of the right to free speech in Singapore,” Amnesty International said today

“By extinguishing one of the few remaining active opposition voices, it will re-reinforce a wider climate of political intimidation in Singapore that stifles the free expression of peaceful dissenting opinion,” Amnesty International said. “By planting a well-founded fear of financial ruin it may effectively deter participation in public life by Singaporeans wishing to promote views alternative to those of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).”

Singapore’s leaders claim they seek only to defend their reputations, and that they would lose the confidence of the electorate if they failed to sue when defamed. Amnesty International believes the use of civil defamation suits by the PAP is both disproportionate and politically-motivated and appears to be aimed primarily at dissenting voices regarded as having the potential to challenge the PAP’s political hegemony.

In this context the PAP’s tactics represent a serious assault on the ability of every Singaporean to realize and enjoy their right to freedom of expression and opinion. Freedom of expression is an important vehicle for political, social and economic development and is essential for the enjoyment of a wide range of other rights.”

So, issue me with a POFMA now because this isn’t breaking news. I did that to make an important point. Can you believe that this was written about J B Jeyaretnam and the date it was published was 1998? Probably around the time that many of my readers were born. Nothing has changed. In fact with the new addition of POFMA as a tool for the repression our society has become more draconian. 

It’s only going to get worse. What’s Breaking is not the news but the will of the people of Singapore but don’t despair. As we can see form recent events the PAP is itself breaking up and that gives us a unique opportunity for some checks and balances and I hope a tiny bit of transparency that can be used to make your lives more equal. 

See the full statement here:

AI INDEX: ASA 36/05/98
22 JULY 1998
Singapore: J B Jeyaretnam –Defamation suits assault freedom of expression

Amnesty International today criticised the recent decision of Singapore’s Court of Appeal to uphold
the appeal of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong against the S$20,000 defamation award made against
opposition leader Mr J B Jeyaretnam in July 1997, and to increase the award to S$100.000, plus full
costs.
“The court’s decision is a further step in the insidious erosion of the right to free speech in
Singapore,” Amnesty International said today.
The human rights organization is gravely concerned that the effect of the judgement will drive
Jeyaretnam into bankruptcy and thus out of Parliament.
“By extinguishing one of the few remaining active opposition voices, it will re-reinforce a wider
climate of political intimidation in Singapore that stifles the free expression of peaceful dissenting
opinion,” Amnesty International said. “By planting a well-founded fear of financial ruin it may
effectively deter participation in public life by Singaporeans wishing to promote views alternative to
those of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).”
Singapore’s leaders claim they seek only to defend their reputations, and that they would lose
the confidence of the electorate if they failed to sue when defamed. Amnesty International believes
the use of civil defamation suits by the PAP is both disproportionate and politically-motivated and
appears to be aimed primarily at dissenting voices regarded as having the potential to challenge the
PAP’s political hegemony.
In this context the PAP’s tactics represent a serious assault on the ability of every Singaporean
to realize and enjoy their right to freedom of expression and opinion. Freedom of expression is an
important vehicle for political, social and economic development and is essential for the enjoyment of
a wide range of other rights.
The Cases
In January 1997 Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought S$200,000 in damages after he claimed
Jeyaretnam defamed him by saying the words ‘And finally, Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed
before me two reports he has made to the police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his
people’.
Jeyaretnam made the comment after he was interrupted during an election speech by fellow
opposition Workers’ Party parliamentary candidate Mr Tang Liang Hong placing documents on the
podium in front of him. Mr Tang –whom Mr Goh and other senior members of the ruling People’s
Action Party (PAP) had publicly labelled an ‘anti-Christian, Chinese
chauvinist’ during the election campaign –asserted he had been criminally defamed in that the PAP
accusations were false and had incited religious groups to hate him. Calling for an investigation Tang
2
filed the police reports. He left Singapore shortly afterwards citing death threats and the need to
organise his business affairs for his legal defence.
PAP leaders sued him in absentia for defamation for filing the police reports and were
awarded a record S$8.08 million damages, reduced on appeal to S$4.53 million. Tang was
subsequently declared bankrupt.

The Judgments
Amnesty International was concerned at the High Court’s decision in September 1997 which found
Jeyaretnam liable for defamation, not on the plain and ordinary meaning of his words, but on the
lesser grounds of ‘innuendo’. Acknowledging that Goh had ‘overstated’ his case the Judge ordered
Jeyaretnam to pay $S20,000 and 60 per cent of costs. Subsequently concerns at the PAP’s political
motives behind the legal pursuit of Jeyaretnam were intensified when Goh launched an appeal calling
for higher levels of damages, which prompted a counter-appeal by the defendant.
Amnesty International is appalled by the decision of the Court of Appeal and regards its
financial and political effects on Jeyaretnam as manifestly unjust. The organisation is also dismayed
that aspects of the judgment appear to substantiate charges that the Judiciary is bending to the will of
the Executive in politically ‘sensitive’ cases.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge had ‘erred’ on three key areas –firstly on the
issue of ‘malice’ behind the statement, secondly in regards to the ‘aggravating factors’ affecting the
amount of the award, and thirdly in relation to the level of the award being ‘disconsonant’ with past
defamation cases.
Amnesty International is concerned that there is nothing in the evidence that would support
the Appeal Court’s position that the trial judge erred in not finding ‘malice’ in Jeyaretnam’s words.
The trial judge found that Jeyaretnam had acted ‘recklessly’ in making the comments -but this is not
‘malice’. The appeal court’s astonishing assertion that Jeyaretnam’s statement was a ‘cleverly disguised
sting directed at Mr Goh…intended to cast a stain on Mr Goh’s reputation in the hope that it might
enhance his (Jeyaretnam’s) chances in the election’ is not supported by evidence, and appears only to
reflect the plaintiff’s pleadings.
The Appeal Court ruled that the trial judge had ‘failed to give adequate weight to the relevant
aggravating factors’, that is, the manner of questioning of Mr Goh by Jeyaretnam’s counsel, Mr
George Carman QC, during the High Court trial. Amnesty International is concerned that the Appeal
Court’s position, based on the assertion ‘that Mr Carmen was only playing to the gallery, and not
attempting to elicit evidence relevant to the issue to the court’ reflects a most worrying propensity of
the Singapore courts to put the ‘protection’ of political leaders, above the search for the truth.
Amnesty International believes Mr Carman’s questioning was necessary and justified to
establish the context of the suits, and the Appeal Court’s assertion that the questioning ‘amounted to
an attack on his integrity, character and suitability for his position as Prime Minister’ is unsupported by
evidence. In effect government leaders appear to be afforded far greater protection in court than those
seeking to defend themselves against serious charges by those leaders. Furthermore the Appeal Court
appears to imply that when robustly examining government ministers in defamation suits defendants
run a serious risk of compounding the defamation.
3
The ruling on aggravated damages impedes the right to fair trial and prevents the defendant
on a defamation case from mounting an adequate defence. It also imputes liability on the defendant
for the actions of his lawyer, without allowing a proper hearing on the issue.
On the question of increasing the level of damages Amnesty International is concerned that
the Appeal Court selected only two cases as relevant precedents without a proper review of
defamation awards in Singapore. The organization is concerned about the wider implications of the
fact that no PAP politician has ever lost a defamation suit in Singapore, and that an examination of the
overall pattern of defamation awards appears to show a marked disparity in cases involving members
of the government versus private citizens.
ENDS…/

Published by kjeyaretnam

I'm a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That's why I've never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism. I'm quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions. The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don't work. The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I'm a liberal. I'm not sure what the middle think of me. I don't think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore. I'm a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I'm not Eurasian. I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean. View all posts by kjeyaretnam