J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 82.
“In February last year, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) announced that it would place out S$25 billion over the next three years to external fund managers who have offices in Singapore. As at end-1998, GIC had placed out a total of $16.9 billion to fund management companies with offices in Singapore. Of this amount, $6.8 billion was placed out in 1998 as a whole. In other words, over the next two years, 1999 and 2000, we will be placing out about another S$18.2 billion. In November 1998, MAS announced that it would place out S$10 billion over the next three years to external fund managers with offices in Singapore. MAS then followed up to meet 36 fund management companies to brief them on details of the outplacement and application procedure. Of the $10 billion, MAS expects to place out $2.5 billion this year. The Government has also encouraged statutory boards and Government-linked companies (GLCs) to place out their excess funds to external fund managers. According to an MAS survey of 28 statutory boards and GLCs last year, these statutory boards and GLCs (excluding MAS and GIC) had placed out a total of S$4.1 billion as at 30th June 1998 to external fund managers with offices in Singapore. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng: Can the DPM tell the House what kind of rate of return we are getting for those funds we placed out up to end of 1998? BG Lee Hsien Loong: It depends. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SINGAPORE'S COMPETITIVENESS (Response to recommendations) 10.”
“For services. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Different banks have different fees and charges imposed. They settle their own. There are a few items which are settled with the Association of Banks. For example, there is an agreement amongst the banks that they will not pay interest on checking accounts. I think that must change and banks will have to be free to do that. It is really up to them what interest they pay. The Member cannot have it both ways. He will remember recently there was a problem with a finance company which was levying a penalty interest on a hawker stallholder whose mortgage was in default. There was a great clamour for the Association of Finance Houses to set the rules and make sure nobody charges too much. Sometimes, the Association has other rules which are not to the liking of the Member. So we have to decide which way we are going to go. In general, the approach should be competition rather than coordination. ENGAGEMENT OF PRIVATE FUND MANAGER 9. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister what is the progress in engaging a private fund manager to manage public funds. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the outplacement of public funds to external private fund managers is part of the Government's effort to develop Singapore into a premier asset management hub. It is a catalyst to encourage leading international fund management companies to locate or expand their operations in Singapore. Asset management companies receiving public funds to manage are committed to increasing headcount and funds under management, including non-resident funds, in Singapore. They are also expected to introduce new investment capabilities and activities in Singapore. This will expand the breadth and depth of our asset management industry.”
“May I come back to my question? Is the DPM aware that these increases of fees and charges are all, first of all, agreed among the various banks through the Association of Banks and they all implement them? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure what fees and charges ---”
“May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether any check is kept over the increasing charges and fees levied by banks for services? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many banks in Singapore. I think there are four or five big local ones and 20-odd foreign full-licence banks. Any bank which is charging him too much, he should just take his custom elsewhere.”
“May I ask the Minister who finally makes the decision as to whether a family is to get any assistance or not? Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: For Public Assistance, it is the Ministry. But for the other assistance schemes, RUAS, for example, as I said, it is administered by NCSS. So NCSS will make the decision and for other assistance schemes which we refer to other Government agencies, they will make the decision on whether the application will be approved or not. COST OF HAJ PILGRIMAGE BY APPROVED TRAVEL AGENTS The following Question stood in the name of Mr Hawazi Daipi - 6. To ask the Minister for Community Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the average cost of going on the haj pilgrimage for the coming haj season; (b) whether the cost is too high, considering that airlines have lowered their airfares; and (c) how the Islamic Religious Council (MUIS) ensures that approved travel agents which provide haj packages do not profiteer, especially at a time when workers have been called to make sacrifices by accepting wage cuts.”
“May I ask the Minister whether there is an income level threshold for applicants?”
“Worse still, commuters may find themselves sandwiched between incoming buses and the barriers, especially when there is a rush. In such instances, barriers can become an obstacle and a danger. Nevertheless, LTA will continue to look into how safety at bus stops can be improved. To protect waiting passengers from rain, LTA has provided screens at the back of our new generation bus stops. LTA will also work with the Ministry of the Environment to improve drainage around the bus shelter to reduce localised ponding during heavy downpour to minimise splashes from cars.”
“Would the Minister of State say whether there is any policy not to prosecute the motorcyclists who leave their motorcycles only for two to three minutes or under five minutes and they are genuinely carrying out some delivery work? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think Mr Jeyaretnam should appreciate the intent behind the scheme, in other words, the meaning of the single zig-zag line and the double zig-zag lines which are carefully chosen in terms of which areas they would be put. The Traffic Police has studied and assessed the situation. I think the House will agree that the problem has been a long standing one which must be resolved. If it is a single zig-zag line, the law says you can stop just to alight or to pick up a person and then you have to go. If it is a double zig-zag line, you cannot even stop. So whether it is for one minute, two minutes or three minutes, the law would have been flouted. INSTALLATION OF BARRIERS BETWEEN BUS STOPS AND ROADS 15. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Communications if the Land Transport Authority or other appropriate authorities will consider putting up full-height steel and plastic barriers between bus stops and the roads, which have been installed in some European countries, in order to protect passengers from rain and car splashes, as well as possible tragedies when incoming buses lose control and crash into waiting passengers. The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, barriers had previously been tried out at some bus stops. Our experience is that these barriers impede passenger flow and result in commuters moving into the bus bay or road itself.”
“Would the Minister of State agree that this illegal parking, as it is called, would only be for the duration of the time taken to deliver a letter or an article by the person who is asked to convey it, and that to ask him to go and park his motorcycle in a parking area which might be some distance away would only add to the time factor? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the time factor may not be very long, depending on what he delivers and for how many people he delivers. It could be five minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes or 20 minutes. But the point is that if enough people do that, then the mischief that is being sought to be addressed by the new measures would still be there.”
“May I ask the Minister of State, apart from this press release, whether there is an official policy document? If there is, will that be made available to the Members of this House?”
“May I ask the Minister of State whether he would give a comprehensive statement of the guidelines or criteria that are adopted by his Ministry in the granting of employment passes?”
“May I ask the Minister whether it is the stand of the Singapore Government that, prior to the moving of the CIQ to Woodlands, Malaysia was operating its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar simply at the will of the Singapore Government, just a bare licence, or whether there was a legal right for them to operate the CIQ at Tanjong Pagar?”
“I call for a division on the motion, Sir.”
“And if I carry on, it will probably take us up to 10 o'clock. But I do not intend to do that.”
“And, indeed, as Members must know, the next day the press carried Mr Tang Liang Hong's reports to the Police, released by no less than the Senior Minister, in conjunction with the Prime Minister. So they were informing the public and yet I was sued because I had told the public that he had lodged the reports. It is this situation that one should examine and answer the question whether we should allow libel actions in these situations. Of course, there is the law, the defence of justification, the defence of fair comment, the defence of qualified privilege. But, as has been observed in the decisions in the other countries, it is almost impossible for a person who makes a comment to prove something which lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party. So it is for the other party to bring all the facts and to show that the statement was false and that the person knew the falsity of the statement when he made it. Both Mr Sin and the Minister of State talk about the sovereign right in Singapore to make its own laws. Where does this motion deny that sovereign right? So what is the purpose in repeating that? We are asking independent people to advise the Government on the law of defamation. We are not asking them to import any other laws. We would be asking them to appoint a Commission to make recommendations. I was going to read, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and I could read, statements in all the cases decided outside Singapore to show what importance they attach to the rights of the citizens. But I do not intend to do that. I have kept Members long enough.”
“I think I had said in the previous motion about the letters that I had received after the last elections where Singaporeans said they were sickened to the pit of their stomachs by what had happened during the elections. They said they were ashamed that this should be allowed in Singapore. So, please carry out a survey. I would be very glad if you would carry out a survey among Singaporeans as to what they think about the defamation actions. I am not disputing that we should make laws that we think are necessary for our society. And this would be the purpose of the Commission. The Commission would examine the present defamation laws and see how they have been applied in the Courts. The Commission would go into the facts and then come out with their recommendation whether they think any change should be made. That is all. What is so difficult about it? We should all accept that with open arms if, as I said, we believe in democracy. So we come back again and again to this question: what kind of society do we want in Singapore? Do we want an open democratic society? Or do we want a society where the people's mouths are shut and they are not able to speak up and make their contributions to the society? There was, in the speeches of the NMPs, the need to protect politicians from false charges or reckless charges. My answer to that is, of course, I can see the need to protect them against scurrilous false charges, but we would have to examine and answer the question whether, in these three cases, there were false scurrilous charges. In my own particular case, it was a statement of truth, that he had placed in front of me reports which he had made to the Police. On that it could not be denied, it was nothing but the absolute truth. There is nothing false about it.”
“The other big misconception is to totally ignore the three cases on which I have relied and to talk generally that we cannot allow our citizens, even if they are Opposition politicians, to run down political leaders. Do I need to go over again the facts upon which the actions were brought in the three cases? There was no smearing of the plaintiffs in these actions. In Mr Tang Liang Hong's case, it was a denial of defamation against him, that he was a Chinese chauvinist and anti-Christian. So are we saying that in Singapore, if a Minister decides to call someone a liar, he should just shut up and not say, "I am afraid the Minister is not speaking the truth"? Because the Minister will then say, "Oh, you are accusing me of lying. I am going to sue you in the courts." Is that not the situation in the case of Tang Liang Hong? Reference is made to the perception of Singaporeans that in our society politicians should immediately take action to protect themselves if there is anything unkind said about them, even if it is defamatory, and especially it is slightly defamatory. Again, I ask: where do you get that perception from? Has any poll been conducted, as it would have been conducted in other countries, as to what Singaporeans thought of the defamation actions in the circumstances over which they were brought? I would urge the Government to carry out that survey. You can dismiss what I say as just my own perception or because a few have told me. My friends have told me and, of course, they would say that. But my own perception is that many Singaporeans were very disappointed and upset over the defamation actions.”
“" It does not only come from taxi drivers. It comes from people way down. So, I fail to understand this statement that, in Singapore, no one need be afraid, whether of defamation laws or the ISA or any other administrative action. What fora are there in Singapore for expression of public opinion? It is no good pointing to feedback systems set up by the Government. I have mentioned before that it has been reported to me that even at these feedback sessions, questions have first to be given and they have to be approved. But what I am suggesting is that if you are really sincere in your statement that there are enough avenues, or you would want avenues, then open up, and allow public discussion. Take away the permit requirements for public meetings. Allow persons to congregate and discuss openly. Then you can say, "Yes, in Singapore, we have all the avenues necessary." But that does not obtain in Singapore. There is no freedom of expression in Singapore. The chilling effect of the defamation actions on the freedom of expression is not something that just the Amnesty, the ICJ or other NGOs have brought up. This chilling effect of restricting, by defamation laws, public participation was noted by the House of Lords in the Derbyshire County Council case. It is probably from there that people have begun using the term "the chilling effect". It is not just the ICJ or Amnesty which talks about the chilling effect. The courts in other countries have recognised that and they recognise the importance of free speech for a truly democratic society which rates the freedom of the citizens to participate in public affairs higher than the right to protect personal reputation. But, of course, they are not suggesting that we go overboard.”
“It only protects the right of citizens to question and participate in the affairs of the country. And it protects them if there are errors of which they were not aware at the time they made the statement. What is wrong with that? The US decision in the New York Times and Sullivan does not say that you can defame the President, you can defame all the other public officials, you can go ahead, and the Constitution gives you the licence. It does not say that and neither do the laws in other countries. So, do not be carried away by the idea that I am proposing for Singapore a licence to defame. All I am concerned is that we should move from the kind of society we are in now into a freer society, with the right of every citizen, in elections or out of elections, to question the Government and to have answers given to those questions, and without being shut up by the threat of defamation actions. Again, a big misconception by Mr Sin and the Minister of State, and perhaps also the point taken by one of the NMPs, Mr Zulkifli, is that, in Singapore, people have the channels to criticise and they do it fearlessly. I do not know how this perception was arrived at. I would commend to the Minister of State and to the Government that perhaps they should appoint a fact-finding body, not the Government, to inquire from the citizens whether they feel they have a right to speak up freely and criticise the Government and its officials in the discharge of its public duties. May I say from what I know, if such a body is appointed and the citizens are told, "You need have no fear. You can give the answers truly.", it will surprise the Government. Not a day passes without me encountering people who tell me, "In Singapore, we cannot breathe. In Singapore, we cannot speak up.”
“On the misconceptions, both Members, I think perhaps even one of the NMPs, questioned whether a Commission was the right way. But if you read my motion, I am not asking for a Commission of Inquiry. A Commission of Inquiry is set up to inquire into some wrongdoing or some accident to find out the facts. But that is not what the motion is seeking to bring about. The motion is asking for a Commission. Have the Government Backbenchers and the Minister of State not heard of law reform commissions appointed to look into the law and to suggest ways of bringing the law up-to-date, if it were necessary? That is the sort of Commission I am asking, not for a Commission of Inquiry into why they brought these actions. But a Commission on whether the law of defamation in Singapore intrudes unnecessarily, may I repeat, intrudes unnecessarily, into the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. That is all. And no one is suggesting that we bring in carte blanche the American model or any other model. All that I am asking is that we should seriously examine this question. Are the defamation laws curtailing in any way this basic right of the individual? So that is the first misconception. The second misconception is that, somehow or other, I am asking that the law of defamation be amended to give persons the licence to defame everybody, including politicians in high places. I do not know whether it is because they did not hear me, or whether they thought they should just ignore what I said and continue to make the same allegation that I am asking for a licence. I made it clear that I was not seeking a licence for defamation, for the right to defame, whether at elections or at any other time. The US law does not give the citizens the right to defame.”
“Mr Sin. Forgive me. It is nothing new to me. But, as I have said before, there is a total failure to come to grips with the question raised by this motion. There are even misconceptions completely of the terms of the motion and its purpose. Instead of that, both Mr Sin and the junior Minister questioned my motivation. It is not surprising to me that they should question that motivation. But that is something I am used to. We have heard this from Ministers over and over again but when we question their motives for bringing the action they take umbrage. As I said, it does not worry me if they should accuse me of motivation. But whatever the motivation, the question is, and which must be answered honestly, is: should we allow in Singapore actions for defamation on the facts that I have outlined in these three cases? I think both Members, particularly the Minister of State, suggest that I am perhaps seeking a high profile in this House. But again, it attacks my personal motive. May I ask is that the reason, because they think I am trying to achieve a high profile. Is that the reason why the media have been told to shut me out completely so that the public may not know anything about what I say in this House, even questions that I ask? Nothing is shown on TV or mentioned over the radio. The press, particularly the English press, have nothing to say. Is that the reason, may I ask, for this blocking out of whatever I say in this House because I am seeking a high profile and that should not be allowed? The question is: what do the public want to hear? What do the public feel about the role of opposition in Parliament? Not whether the Opposition Members are seeking a high profile or not. If they are talking nonsense, let it be reported so that the public can see it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that, apart from the two Nominated MPs, what we have heard from the Government benches, Mr Sng in particular, and the junior Minister are all old hat. They say I keep repeating but theirs is old hat. We have heard this over and over again, perhaps not from them but from Ministers. Mr Goh Chok Tong, even from the witness stand, was saying what Mr Sng was repeating here.”
“Ever since Mr Jeyaretnam returned to this House, he has sought at every turn for a higher profile for himself in Parliament. I think this time round, as in other times, we must deny him that. Our approach has worked well. It has resulted in good government where honest and able men and women of integrity are prepared to step forward, sometimes as a sacrifice to themselves, to assume public office. What is happening in the region in the last 2-3 years where Singapore is standing up very well, shows that this approach is the way to go. Politicians who are subject to scurrilous attacks on their personal integrity and character must continue to receive the protection of the law. In this, they should not be singled out and additional fetters should not be placed in their path when they sue for defamation.”
“But, let us not open Pandora's box because when the horse bolts, we may not know how to rein it in. We have kept it in this manner which has worked all these years. Singapore has done well. It is the right approach. Let us keep to it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of energy spent by Government leaders, not governing but handling the media, countering these defamations in the media. Another important point which I have made is the occasions when PAP leaders have sued. I have made this point already. That is a point worth repeating. It is not because of criticisms but because of grave and serious allegations, personal ones, going to the heart of good governance. Therefore, the falsehood must be shown up and the best way to do it is decisively, independently, objectively, according to principles and standards which are all laid out in the case laws in our courts. This afternoon, the Minister for Law has, in a very convincing speech, highlighted the reputation of our Courts, not just in Singapore but worldwide. It is not just said by us, but by independent polls. So let the Courts do their job. Should there be a cap on the quantum of damages? Again, I would say that there is no need to do this because the cases differ on the facts. Unlike the UK where the jury decides on the damages and it has been said the damages can be inordinately large and somewhat inconsistent, in Singapore, where judges decide on the damages, they look at the framework of cases and they decide based on precedents. They would say, "In this case, because of these facts, so much will be given." I think we should not have a cap and limit the quantum. Sir, let me conclude. It is obvious that this motion cannot stand.”
“Surely not. So that cannot be the better approach. In the same vein, maybe not as dramatic, but different nonetheless, we are also evolving differently as a society from the British society, the Australian society. Or as Mr Simon Tay says, "Why not the middle ground? US in one spectrum, or at one end, and Singapore at the other end, but there may be other models in between." We have to find our own model, especially when we talk about political leaders having to protect their own reputation because the way political leaders are elected differ from country to country. The compact between the elected and the electorate differs from country to country. Therefore, we must evolve our own way. The next question is: should there therefore be a different yardstick for political and public figures? I think, Mr Zulkifli, and if I am not wrong, Mr Tay, also asked this. Should politicians be treated differently? Should they be more thick-skinned? Sir, the law of defamation protects everyone, both public officials and private citizens alike. It must be so. There is equality before the law. In fact, this point was brought up in one of the cases where section 12 was cited. Why should the reputation of public officials matter less? Indeed, it is already hard enough attracting able Singaporeans to give up the privacy of their lives to heed the higher calling of politics. A higher requirement of suing and succeeding in defamation, to clear one's reputation, when smeared, would be an unnecessary additional barrier. Hence, Singaporeans can criticise Government's policies, implementation of policies, conduct of public officials, but I would say, no defamation, please. These will be met with rebuttals, explanations and consultation, if need be.”
“Lingers in the European Court of Human Rights. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The Austrian case, I know. My response is that as Singapore matures as a society, we must build up our own legal jurisprudence. This must be so. This is an inexorable process, applicable not only in the case of the law of defamation, where there are well over 100 local reported and unreported cases, including several important Court of Appeal decisions, but in many areas of the law, such as criminal law, family law, as well. But I would say that more so in the law of defamation, we cannot follow developments in Western democracies such as UK, US or Australia blindly. Why? Because defamation laws are society-oriented. The test of defamation involves how ordinary members of that society would view the plaintiff in the light of the alleged defamatory remarks. Hence, every society must, in the final analysis, evolve its own benchmark and yardstick. What amounts to defamation in one society may not be so in another, and this is shown very clearly in the US, for example, as Mr Tay has alluded. And indeed, even among the countries that Mr Jeyaretnam cites, whether it is US, UK, Australia, their laws of defamation also differ which proves my point. There is therefore no one right approach. Neither is there an international approach. Ridiculing and sullying the reputation of national political leaders may be acceptable, say, in the US. But why should it be so in Singapore, where the standing of politicians and the process are different? Hence in the US, because of this requirement for express malice, it has become well-nigh impossible to sue in defamation when a politician is defamed. Hence, we have the media coverage and stories being exchanged, defamation for defamation. Is the country better off for it?”
“Quite the contrary, the law is sensitive and nuanced enough to differentiate fair criticisms on the one hand, innocent, unintended or careless remarks on the other hand, and malicious falsehoods in the third category. The law also ensures that fair and justified comments, even if defamatory, will not necessarily get its maker into trouble. The next point is that Mr Jeyaretnam cites support from developments in overseas jurisdictions. He talks about Derbyshire. He talks about New York Times. He talks about the Theophanous and Stephen's cases in the Australian High Court which incidentally were only 4-3 majority decisions.”
“If any politician thinks it is in the public interest to expose any character flaw or wrongdoing of an opposing candidate, he can and indeed should do so. But, at the same time, he must be prepared to justify these allegations, and that is the way it should be. There are rules of conduct in election campaigning. Otherwise, we can imagine that the noble task of choosing political leaders who form the Government to lead the country will become an open season for mud-slinging and character assassination, an outcome we must avoid. In any case, another important point is that the defamation action is not a blunt instrument. And I am sure that Singaporeans, I think not many, who fear defamation action if they criticise the Government or public officials, if they know this, they will be assured. Because, besides the defence of justification, there are also other defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege. In addition, a person who innocently defames another may make amends in accordance with section 7 of the Defamation Act. Even if not made innocently, he can mitigate damages by making an unreserved apology. And indeed an early, sincere, unqualified apology may in fact avert a defamation suit. In many cases, the publication of an unqualified apology in the newspapers will result in a full settlement of any potential action for damages. Some may argue that freedom of speech should include freedom to err in speech. Our defamation laws allow for freedom to err in speech but not freedom to perpetuate defamatory statements to the detriment of the person defamed. Sir, I have made these points to show that the law of defamation is not a sledgehammer.”
“As such, PAP leaders sue in their personal capacity. I think all of us know a key defence to a defamation action is justification. In other words, it is open to the defendant to prove that what he says is true. A politician who sues thus opens himself and his actions to public scrutiny and rigorous cross-examination in court. Hence, with all these constraints, why then do politicians sue? The main point is to establish the truth. A politician knows that scurrilous accusations left unchallenged would poison the public's mind. For example, past allegations against PAP leaders which have prompted them to sue for defamation include imputations or implications of nepotism, corruption, lying, abuse of power, all of which are very serious allegations, and of course implication in the death of a Minister and other such implications. In a Singapore founded on good honest Government, we cannot allow such poison to fester and go unchallenged. Besides risking exposure, if the allegations are proven to be true, a losing plaintiff has also to pay costs. Therefore, the point is no PAP leader will sue for defamation unadvisedly and without just cause. Should there be a higher threshold when remarks are uttered in the heat of the hustings? This is Mr Zulkifli's point. Indeed, this is the situation on which the three cases are founded. But the question really is: why should it be so? Elections and electioneering should never be justification for defaming and maligning an opposing candidate whether with words which are plain and ordinary in the meaning or, more often than not, words with innuendo meaning. Why should the law give licence to politicians, whether Opposition or Government, to make defamatory statements?”
“In a Singapore lacking in natural resources where the cutting edge that has made a difference is human resource, it is critical that at the apex where the national political leadership and key institutions sit, there is no doubt that there is absolute honesty and integrity. Wild allegations must be deterred and debunked in accordance with the law. Why? Otherwise the ability to govern will be undermined. This indeed is a democratic and conclusive way to settle disputes and thus maintain high standards of truth in politics. The other way, as is the case in some countries, is to exchange defamation for defamation in the media with the public never the wiser as to who is lying. Singapore leaders therefore sue in defamation to clear their names and protect these key institutions through due process of the law, not to stifle, intimidate, harass or bankrupt the Opposition. Therefore, these actions are not politically motivated. Ultimately, Singapore will benefit. The other point of course is that politicians who do not clear their name in court, when defamed, will lose the respect of the electorate. They will ask what is he fearful about. Why is he not suing? A key ingredient of good Government is that political leaders have the trust and respect of the electorate. PAP leaders working with important institutions, such as the civil service, have through many years of hard, honest work won this trust and respect. Public interest demands that such good repute be accorded the protection that it deserves, because we cannot risk what has happened in some countries where politicians are regarded very lowly. One must not forget that when anyone, more so a national leader, sues in defamation, he is putting his own reputation on the line.”
“Why? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Whatever it is, the highest court at that time dismissed Mr Jeyaretnam's case. Mr Jeyaretnam also talks about our Constitution. In Singapore, yes, there is freedom of speech in Article 14 of the Constitution. Yet, at the same time, and Mr Tay has alluded to that, it must be balanced because the word "defamation" is also mentioned expressly in our Constitution. Therefore, the requirement of balance is in fact expressly set out in the Constitution. But Mr Tay supports Mr Jeyaretnam's call for a Commission of Inquiry. A Commission of Inquiry is normally set up to inquire into alleged wrongdoing. It is not the proper forum for the examination of an area of the law. Of course, with Mr Jeyaretnam back in the House, I think one other theme that is recurrent has been his constant calls for the formation of Commissions of Inquiry, committees and whatnots. Perhaps he sees himself playing a starring role in these committees. He wants a higher profile for himself in Parliament. Like I have said just now, the law is working well. Indeed, the law is evolving because our courts are still looking at how defamation laws can be applied in various contexts. So I would say, let the courts do the job. I think this is an approach Mr Tay himself has previously argued for. So our position is that unless there is a need for Parliamentary intervention, the courts should do their job. I should take this opportunity to explain why PAP leaders sue for defamation. We have explained this many times before, both here and outside. Defamation is taken very seriously in Singapore, not just by the Government, but indeed by all Singaporeans, more so when the integrity of its political leaders and key institutions is questioned.”
“It is for us who have the mandate under the Constitution to see that the spirit of the Constitution is preserved and enforced. We take the oath when we come into this House that we will defend, preserve and protect the Constitution. If we are to be true to that oath, then we have got to take steps to see that the Constitution is not in any way hindered or impeded by laws or administrative action, but that the full spirit of the Constitution be given effect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting what amendments should be made. A Nominated Member queried why we need a Commission. I thought it would be obvious. I am not suggesting what amendments should be made. I am suggesting that we appoint a Commission now to inquire into whether it is time for us, as a society, to look at the way the defamation law is applied and whether it should be continued to be applied as it is at the moment. It is of the utmost importance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we should take steps now. We were debating the whole of this week on competitiveness and about going into the 21st century. If we are to go into the 21st century, we have got to go in as a progressive society.”
“And it is not only him who suffered, it was his wife of whom we have seen some publicity the week before. Her passport was impounded illegally. She was prevented from leaving Singapore. I could go on but probably I am nearing the time I am allowed to speak. But what we have to ask is, as Mr Lee was asking when he was in the Opposition, do we believe in democracy or do we not? He was asking that question. He said that it was simple. "You answer that", he said. Do we believe in democracy or do we not? If we do believe in democracy, then there is no answer except to say that we should allow the practice of democracy in this country which means the right in every citizen to ask honestly, without any malice, any questions of public officials in their conduct and discharge of public functions. If, however, we do not believe in democracy and we do not want a democratic society in Singapore, we do not want a Parliamentary system of government which can only function with an adequate number of Opposition Members in Parliament, not Nominated Members, but Opposition Members in Parliament, then let us tell the world we do not want democracy in this country. We do not want Parliamentary democracy. We are quite happy with our own autocracy. So then we will be honest with ourselves. But, on the contrary, we hear protestations from Ministers that we are a democratic country, that we are an open society. The questions I asked in 1988, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, were in reply to Mr Lee's statement then that the Singapore Government was an open Government accountable to the people. And I posed several questions and these questions were among those questions: were you open and accountable to the people in those situations?”
“It went up to the House of Lords. The County Council took it up to the House of Lords who dismissed the appeal, again, declaring what had already been said about the vital importance and role in a truly democratic society for citizens to comment on and criticise the conduct of public officials and to ask questions. So we have these developments in the law in other countries. This development of the law is also taking place in Australia where the High Court of Australia has ruled that it is of the utmost importance that the right of citizens to criticise and comment on the conduct of public officials should not be curbed in any way unless it is absolutely necessary. These three cases that I have illustrated, I hope, will demonstrate that the actions were totally unnecessary because there was no question of the Ministers being accused of crimes or misconduct in their lives. These actions arose over the exercise of our rights as citizens to ask questions and, in the case of Mr Tang Liang Hong, to deny accusations which were made against him. Here is a man who was seeking elections to Parliament along with me. If he did not deny it, and if he did not say it was not the truth, what would the electorate say? Those who had to make up their minds would say, "I see. He admits that he is a Chinese chauvinist. He admits he is an anti-Christian. So we better not vote him in." So does he not have a right to deny that he is a Chinese chauvinist and an anti-Christian? I do not believe that he is a Chinese chauvinist, and I said that several times during the elections, neither is he an anti-Christian. His daughter is a Christian. And as we said, it is quite inexplicable that if he is an anti-Christian, he should decide to team up with me who is a Christian, and he knew that.”
“But even at the beginning of this century, a minority view in a Supreme Court (I think it goes back to 1908), it was a State Supreme Court, held that the greater right was the right to ask questions and that libel actions should not be entertained where a citizen seeks to criticise, even wrongly on wrong facts, the conduct of public officials. Sullivan's case was followed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a journalist who wrote an article criticising the Austrian Chancellor, accusing him of very grave offences, of harbouring and protecting Nazis during the Nazi regime. And he was convicted in an action brought for criminal defamation. He took up his case to the European Court of Human Rights. Fortunately, Europe has thought fit to have a court of human rights which would entertain petitions of this nature. I shall read the provision in the European Charter, which I say corresponds almost identically with our Article 14. The Court held that the conviction was an unnecessary interference with the liberty of this journalist to write on a matter of public interest and they set aside the conviction and ordered compensation to be paid to the journalist for all the suffering he had suffered. They had no doubt of what was the greater right in a truly democratic society. Then there was a case in England brought by a County Council against a newspaper which had criticised, not public officials, I must point out the difference, but the Council itself, and I shall read some of the passages in the judgement in my reply but time does not permit me to read them now. It was held that in a truly democratic society, this freedom is important, the freedom to criticise and comment on public officials, and the action by the County Council was thrown out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps I will deal at length with the laws in the other countries in my reply, but I wish to say this now, so that whoever is replying can consider this. Article 14(2)(a) allows Parliament to make such laws as Parliament considers it necessary to impose restrictions on the right of freedom granted under Article 14(1). The question is, would these laws be necessary? There is also the question of which is the greater public interest - the asking of questions, the attempt to deny allegations made against you or is it the supposed protection of the reputation of public officials? Which is of greater public interest? And I am sure, if you ask any Parliamentarian, he would say the greater public interest is that questions should be asked and information given honestly to voters. The first decision which made an inroad to cut on this attempt to shut members of the public from questioning or criticising the conduct of public officials was way back in the 1940s when the US Supreme Court decided in the case of Sullivan and the New York Times that public officials cannot maintain an action against any criticism of them even if the facts were wrongly stated, unless the public officials were able to show that whoever made that criticism had actual knowledge that the facts were false and so were acting maliciously. Knowing something to be false and stating it. That was a revolutionary change in the law. It stopped public officials from bringing actions because of criticism of the officials concerned.”
“And his report to the Police, if you care to look it up, was simply denying the allegations, and to ask for Police protection. And I was slapped with suits. Just as he, there were about eight or nine suits against him (I think it is probably more), but I had eight suits against me. Is this how we are going to keep Opposition Members out of Parliament? The question we have to ask, and I keep repeating this: should we allow in this country these libel actions to continue? Or should we say enough is enough now, we want a society that is progressive, and we can only become progressive if Parliament is allowed to play its role as a check on the Government. And if that will not be possible, we will never become a progressive society, we will never become an open society, so long as these impediments are in place, preventing candidates from speaking their mind openly and freely at the elections. I am not advocating - let me make it very clear - a licence for candidates to defame Ministers or others in public life, to accuse them falsely of anything. But as I have tried to show in these three actions, there was nothing of that sort. And yet the actions were brought. The Courts have held that the meanings were that we were defaming them. But, as I said, I am not here to criticise the decision of the Courts. But if that is how it is going to be interpreted, then it is time we looked at the law of defamation to see whether actions like these should be allowed to be brought in the Courts in Singapore, but that candidates should have, as was intended by the framers of the Constitution, the uninhibited basic right to give information to the voters and to ask questions that are necessary and that will help to guide the voters in the choice of who they should send into Parliament.”
“" He said, "They are telling lies." But he could have said they were not telling the truth. There is no truth in what they say. And for that, it was decided that libel suits should be issued against him. I hope Members can see how oppressively libel suits are being used in Singapore. Here is a man who is accused of being a Chinese chauvinist, being anti-Christian, because it is thought that he should not be in this House. And libel suits are issued against him when he denies it, says that they are not telling the truth when they accuse him of being a Chinese chauvinist and anti-Christian. Then there were other suits against him. One was that because he said in Kuala Lumpur when he was informed that the Prime Minister had said that he would not be arrested under the ISA, "Should I trust him?" or something. He was again slapped with a libel suit. Again, the question that Members should ask is: was a libel suit necessary in these circumstances? There was no statement, I repeat, made either by me in the 1988 statement in the elections or Mr Tang Liang Hong accusing anyone, any Minister, of corruption or of committing criminal offences. I was asking questions of public interest and Mr Tang Liang Hong was seeking to deny allegations made against him. Is it justifiable that he should then be the subject, as I was the subject, of libel suits, simply to frighten - I am saying in this House - others who may aspire to come into Parliament? Then following that was the Prime Minister's suit against me. And, again, I do not have to remind Members - I am sure it must be fresh in their memories - that the words over which I was sued for libel were to give a statement of fact that Mr Tang Liang Hong had made reports to the Police, as he had said he would.”
“" The question that we should ask is: should we permit actions like this, or should we not amend the law to prevent actions of this nature where the action arises over legitimate questions of public interest asked of Ministers and public officials? It is very important that we grasp this because if Ministers are going to serve a writ on any member of the public or any member aspiring to come into Parliament because he asks questions of public interest and then scare him into coming into Parliament, we are never going to get a Parliament to play its role. We are not going to get the Opposition Members coming into Parliament. So that was one case. Then, of course, the more recent cases brought after the last elections or just towards the tail end of the elections. I do not have to repeat or give a lot of information to Members about how these libel suits came about. But, of course, Members will recall that it was revealed publicly that a Cabinet decision had been taken to keep Mr Tang Liang Hong out of Parliament. That the Cabinet had decided that he should not be allowed into Parliament. Of course, that meant that the whole team could not come in. I could not come in either because he was part of the team. In pursuance of that, they decided, and this is all public, that they would expose him as a Chinese chauvinist and an anti-Christian. He had not said anything but they decided that they would expose him as a Chinese chauvinist and an anti-Christian so that he would not enter into Parliament, and along with him, me and the others who were standing in this constituency. And Mr Tang said he was not a Chinese chauvinist, he was not anti-Christian, because he could not keep silent when he was accused of these things, and so he spoke to the press, and he said, "I am not.”
“" He was found dead in bed one morning and the cause of death was an overdose of amytal tablets. It was then revealed that he was under investigation for corruption. So that was immediately a matter of great public interest. There is no question that it was a matter of great public interest. Our party asked questions saying there should be a full investigation into this death and how he came by his death. We asked two questions because it was revealed that he had written to the then Prime Minister, the present Senior Minister, a letter the day before he died. It was not revealed whether there was any reply to that letter. So we asked whether there was any reply given to him. The second question was: how did he get these amytal tablets? Because amytal tablets, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are probably aware, are on the Poisons List. Their stocks and distribution are controlled, and should be controlled very strictly, with proper records kept. When we asked for questions through the party, there was no answer. But when I asked the same questions in an election in 1988, I was served with a writ. I do want Members to understand this clearly that this arose over two questions asked, questions which were of great public interest. In any other country, the press and public would be in full cry wanting to know the answers to several questions. But I was taken to court as having libelled the then Prime Minister. Finally, in court, we got an answer from him that he did not reply to that letter. As someone observed to me, "Well, you had to pay $260,000 for an answer to a question. Was that not a bit expensive?”
“Therefore, free speech becomes the life blood in elections for voters to make their choice. All this is guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14, Part IV of the Constitution, enshrines what are the essentials of a democratic society and which Singapore should have. Article 14(1) of the Constitution grants every citizen the freedom of expression and assembly. Article 14(2)(a), however, seeks to impose a restriction on this right where it is considered necessary. It says, "Parliament may by law impose . such restrictions as it considers necessary." Article 162 of the Constitution expressly mandates the courts, Parliament and all other law-making bodies to construe any existing law with modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions to bring them into conformity with the Constitution. So there is clear mandate in the Constitution that there should be no law which unnecessarily, and that is important, puts an impediment on the development of a truly democratic society. I will illustrate how the defamation laws have been applied by the courts, and I am not here to criticise the decisions of the courts, but I am here to ask whether we should now make an amendment to the defamation law to bring it into accord with the Constitution. I will illustrate this by three cases of libel suits that were brought, and they are of very recent origins, so I expect Members must be more than aware of these suits. The first was a suit brought in 1989 and it arose over questions asked about the death of a Minister. Members will, of course, recall that the former Minister for National Development of whom Mr Lee, when I was in this House, declared, "Where can I find another Mr Teh Cheang Wan.”
“Yes, thank you. As I said, by a deliberate and systematic course of action, they kept Opposition Members out. At first, it was the use of ISA, and making life inconvenient for those who aspired to enter Parliament. But now, over the last few years, we see an increasing trend to keep Opposition Members out by the use of the libel law and which deters very effectively, may I say, persons who aspire to enter Parliament to serve their country, but think that their place should really be in the Opposition, and not in the Government party. But they are deterred by the defamation actions. I am going to ask whether these defamation actions accord with the spirit of the Articles in the Constitution and with the law as it is being developed in other countries. If you want me to move on, I will. But the quintessence of a parliamentary democracy, may I say, is the presence in Parliament of a sufficient body of members to perform the primary role of Parliament as a check on the Executive. So the point I am making is that if you really believe in a truly democratic society, then you should put no impediments, no blocks, on Parliament playing the role that it was intended to play. It can only play that role if you have a sufficient body of Opposition Members. They can only enter Parliament through elections and there is no substitute for allowing the electorate to elect the Opposition Members into Parliament. With respect to the Nominated Members, they are no substitute. Parliament should have the Opposition Members in Parliament elected by the electorate. For this, there is a basic right on the part of voters to receive information on issues in the elections and corresponding right on candidates to impart information.”
“All right, Mr Deputy Speaker. But the point is that by a systematic and deliberate move, which I am going to spell out, the libel suits would be one of these measures. That is why I am going to ask for an amendment to the defamation laws. But I am saying, by a systematic and deliberate move, the Government has so far succeeded in preventing the election into Parliament of Opposition Members and that is what I am talking about this evening, and that is why I am asking for an amendment to the defamation laws in accordance with the spirit and Articles of the Constitution. Do I make myself clear, Mr Deputy Speaker?”
“You must bear with me. This is Parliament and Members should have the right to speak their minds on the present position.”
“I am not repeating what I have said today.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is important so that Members can understand why we need to change the defamation laws. They should understand the role of Parliament and ask the question where they are moving.”
“I am coming to it, but I must perhaps lay the background and show you the present role of Parliament and why it is such a damaging thing for our society. I will be coming to it.”
“This became very marked when the Barisan Sosialis who were still in the Assembly after they had broken away from the People's Action Party and were sitting in the opposition benches, decided, for some reason or other, that they would take their battle to the streets, and would no longer attend the sittings of the Assembly. That, may I say, and I have said it, was a wrong move and it was a disservice to the people of Singapore when they left the Legislative Assembly. Then, when we came out of Malaysia, we found ourselves with a Parliament totally composed of One-Party Members, the ruling party Members, and that continued until 1981 when there was one other Member from another party in Parliament. But today, 50 years down the road, we still have not reached anywhere near the stage of performing the role that Parliament was intended.”
“The question that I am posing today, and which I would ask the Members to answer honestly, is: is this Parliament, now 50 years down the road, after we accepted the parliamentary system of government, performing such a role, and if not, why not? I propose in the course of my speech to give the answers as to why this House is not performing the role that it should be performing in a parliamentary democratic form of government and suggest the remedy for that. It was envisaged by those who were setting out on the nationhood for Singapore that Parliament should, as I said, be the supreme body and that the Government be subject to it. Of course, I have to acknowledge that in the years before 1959, when the present Senior Minister was in the opposition, the Legislative Assembly, even though it had limited powers, was trying to do just that, to act as a check on the Government then. Those Members who have read the debates would have seen that Mr Lee wasted no time, although again his Opposition Members were not very large, in trying to bring the Government to check, probing and seeking answers to questions. He then showed himself as a firm believer in parliamentary democracy. But for Singapore, this fervour somewhat began to cool off after the PAP took power in 1959, though from the years 1963 to 1965, when we were part of Malaysia and Mr Lee was attending the Malaysian Parliament, there he again found his fervour and spoke at length, whenever it was possible, on the need for parliamentary democracy and the government being subject to parliamentary control. But after we came out of Malaysia and perhaps before that, Parliament began on the road of not being able to exercise its role which was intended for it.”
“As I have said once before, in 1947, when we, as a people, were deciding what sort of a government we desired, because the British had offered some self-autonomy, we sent an All-Party Commission to London to say that we wanted a parliamentary democracy based on the Westminster model. And it is not surprising, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we should have chosen that, that is, that we wanted a parliamentary democracy where the Government will be subject to Parliament, representing the will of the people. I said it is not surprising because that system of government was accepted by the people of the United States when they decided to break away from the United Kingdom and become a nation by themselves, only that they carried it to more rigid divisions of power and it was also accepted by countries which were once under British rule and then broke away from British rule. And Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and who was a great, passionate believer in parliamentary democracy, chose that as the model for India. May I say, it was not just Jawaharlal Nehru, even our present Senior Minister who was a member of the All-Party Commission to London, chose for Singapore, along with the others, this parliamentary system of government. It was not surprising that he should choose that, having come from Cambridge and studied DICEY and the rule of law. Under this system of government, it is Parliament that, as representatives of the people, should have control over the Government. It should act not only as offering advice on legislation, law and other matters, but first and foremost, as a check on executive power. That was the foremost intention of the people who evolved Parliament into what it is today in the United Kingdom and other countries.”