CAShop
Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2012
- Messages
- 8,410
- Reaction score
- 0
Summary frog in the well 30% does not know that in UK, the politicians also sue others for defamation.
http://six-six.com/article/singapores-conservative-majority-has-entrenched-itself-law-defamation
http://six-six.com/article/singapores-conservative-majority-has-entrenched-itself-law-defamation
As I have publicly argued in the past, those who seek social and political change of any kind are generally the most vocal, demonstrative and passionate in advancing their cause. In the digital age, this becomes even more apparent as the seekers of change go online to make their views known.
On the other hand, those who do not seek change, but prefer the status quo, are largely less vocal, less demonstrative and less passionate in making their views known. That is, until an event compels them to make their feelings known, albeit momentarily.
In Singapore in 2015, two events showed the numerical strength of those who appreciate what they have in Singapore and who are generally not seekers of radical social and political change.
The passing of Lee Kuan Yew in March brought out hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans (and also non-Singaporeans) who were prepared to queue for many hours so that they could pay their last respects to Singapore’s founding prime minister. Days before Mr Lee’s passing, in a lunch with British diplomats, I had mentioned that even some of his detractors would feel sad at his demise.
Then less than six months later, at the general election, the ruling People’s Action Party confounded all projections with a landslide victory, the extent of which was in sharp contrast to the cacophony of voices online advocating change.
From these two events can it be argued that there is a large conservative majority in Singapore and that it has entrenched itself in 2015.
Generally Singaporeans do not think of themselves in the political terminology of “conservative”, on the one hand, or “progressive” or “liberal”, on the other. Instead, the instinctive characteristics of Singaporeans only emerge when they react to individual issues or events.
It could be argued that a conservative disposition — which includes a risk-averse tendency — is synonymous with the status quo. That, in and of itself, reflects on, and has implications for, the nature of politics and governance in Singapore.
Here, it should be pointed out that Singapore is a majoritarian democracy. This essentially means that those who, in ideological terms, are in a minority will generally not have their voices heard, let alone listened to in any significant degree. (The operative words are “in any significant degree”.) The close to 70% of the popular vote the PAP garnered in GE2015, where all constituencies were contested, has simply solidified the political basis of Singapore as a majoritarian democracy. It has also reinforced the view that the PAP is the natural party of government.
Things would be completely different if Singapore was a consensus democracy. In a consensus democracy decision-making tends to be a slow process as many voices as possible would have their views heard and, possibly, reflected in public policy.
The ideological fringe would also have its voice amplified in a consensus democracy. And, here, it is difficult to see a majority of Singaporeans agreeing that this would be a good idea.
The fact that Singapore is not a consensus democracy has not stopped progressives/liberals going online and being some of the most vocal proponents for various causes. These causes have included the abolition of the death penalty; the repeal of the Internal Security Act; and, the repeal of S377a — the law which criminalises sex between men.
If Singaporeans were asked for their views on each of these issues it would be difficult to envision that a majority would be in favour of any of these statutes and laws being done away with.
Progressives and liberals, however, would likely be unimpressed, and they will keep on plugging away in supporting the causes that sit well with them.
Views on Defamation Suits
Novelist Catherine Lim, in her latest open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong bemoans the fact that he had sued blogger Roy Ngerng for defamation and that the PM has now been awarded damages of $150,000 by the High Court.
Lim ended her letter to PM Lee with the rhetorical question, “For what’s the use of winning in a court of law and losing in the court of public opinion?” There is no evidence to suggest that with his libel suit and the award of damages of $150,000 that PM Lee has lost in the court of public opinion. To argue this is to merely make a supposition.
In the United States, a country which is arguably the most litigious in the world, most people would have noticed that politicians do not seem to sue for defamation. The reason is not that they do not wish to sue but that case law in the US going back to at least the 1960s has indicated the difficulties, complexities and protracted nature of lawsuits initiated by politicians that, for all practical purposes, make such lawsuits not a viable option to redress falsehoods.
On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, politicians across the political spectrum — from the left to the right — have sued for defamation. For instance, in 2003 the maverick politician George Galloway was awarded damages of £150,000 by the London High Court in a libel case he brought against the establishment newspaper The Daily Telegraph. In January 2006, the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The Telegraph also had to pay Galloway £1.2 million in legal costs.
Further, Galloway took legal action against the US newspaper the Christian Science Monitor (CSM). That case was settled out-of-court, with the CSM paying Galloway undisclosed damages.
More recently, in 2013, the late Conservative Party peer Lord McAlpine sued a number of Twitter users for tweeting a tawdry smear about him. He received varying amounts of damages from a number of individuals.
In 2014, the Conservative Party MP (and one-time Cabinet minister), Andrew Mitchell, lost a libel suit in the London High Court in a case he brought against a police officer and The Sun newspaper over an incident in September 2012 at the main gate to Downing St. Mitchell was left with hefty legal bills said to be in the millions of pounds.
Initiating a suit for defamation is intended to publicly set the record straight when it comes to falsehoods being purveyed. The party being sued is made to admit having purveyed a falsehood, or the court hands down a judgment saying a falsehood had, or had not, been purveyed. Any quantum of damages is intended to reflect the gravity of the falsehood, the malice (or otherwise) that propelled it, and any damage done to reputation.
Equally, initiating a lawsuit is also intended to draw a red line that there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed. Not initiating a lawsuit against someone who uttered a patently malicious falsehood would simply encourage others to do the same. If the second route was chosen then, for high profile individuals, it could be a case of a metaphorical death by a thousand cuts.
Consider for one moment if ever an opinion poll, underpinned by proper methodology (i.e., an offline poll with a relatively large and representative sample size), was conducted as to whether Singaporeans agreed or disagreed with the question:
Are Politicians in Singapore Entitled to Sue for Defamation?
Would anyone seriously be surprised if a majority of Singaporeans, and a large majority at that, gave an affirmative answer?
Here, it is worth remembering that Singapore had a parliamentary election less than four months ago. Nationally, almost seven out of 10 voters opted to remain with the status quo. Merely from the evidence of the election results it is difficult to get away from the conclusion that most Singaporeans would likely cut their leaders plenty of slack.
And it could be argued that conservative-inclined Singaporeans, having entrenched themselves in Singapore in 2015, are set to increase their numbers between now and the next election which would have to be held no later than 2021.
The reason for this is that over the next five years there will be an estimated extra 100,000-120,000 naturalised citizens. Most of these (i.e., those who are of voting age) will be added to the electoral rolls. The PAP, widely viewed as the natural party of government, would be the instinctive choice for many of these new citizens.
The late Lee Kuan Yew left Singapore with plenty of legacies. It could be argued that another one of his legacies is a country whose people are generally in social and political instinct conservative by nature, even if the progressive and liberal cause is the trend in many other countries.
If nothing else, Singapore will remain a fascinating case study for social scientists for many years to come.
