One of most prominent moments in the Godfather came when
Michael Corleone tells his finance that his father, the Godfather of the Corleone
family, advised Michael’s adopted brother Tom, to study law because “A lawyer
with brief case steals more than a Gangster with a Gun.”
This gem of wisdom from the most famous fictional mafia don
is often used as the centre of political jokes in Singapore. Singaporeans often
quip that Singapore is a gangster town, its just that the gangsters all wear
white (the standard dress code of the ruling People’s Action Party). It’s often
said (in hushed tones) that Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest gangster in town
and the only difference between Mr. Lee and his contemporaries was that he used
“legal” means of dealing with political opponents. Unlike, say, the military rulers
of Burma, Mr. Lee never sent troops in the streets to shoot people. However, if
you said something he didn’t like, chances were, you end up with a hefty fine for libel imposed by the courts.
The late Mr. Lee was a good lawyer who, unlike his regional
contemporaries, understood that Singapore needed the good will of the
international community and that would require making sure that everything
would be done legally. Being the good lawyer that he was, Mr. Lee understood
that power was not so much a case of the letters of the law but how they were
applied. If you look at the cases where the Singapore government has sued
people, it’s hard to argue that they were technically wrong because if you followed the letter of the law, they were correct. It just so happened that whoever
they were suing would inevitably be political opponents or publications that had
given political opponents a voice. Even the most recent case, which involved
the current Mr. Lee suing a blogger, Mr. Leong Sze Hian for the crime of sharing
a post of his social media followed this pattern. The judgement in the matter
can be found at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2021-sghc-66-pdf.pdf
Think of this as a more advanced version of Bill Clinton’s
“I did not have sexual relations,” defense. Technically he was not wrong because
if one looked at the letter of the law, the definition of “sexual relations”
did not constitute what he had received from Ms. Lewinisky, even if most of us
would find it hard to imagine how one could be on the receiving end of a b**j**
with someone one was not having a sexual relationship with.
The government’s use of lawsuits has become the stuff of
legend. The late Mr. Lee famously bankrupted the late JB Jeyaratnam who was our
first opposition member of parliament. Some of the most respected publications
like the New York Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall
Street Journal (now known as Wall Street Journal Asian Edition) were all taken
to task in Singapore’s court system and made to pay hefty sums to Singapore’s
political leadership.
The libel laws have been such that being an editor is a
tough job in Singapore. One has to ensure that news is published but it’s done
in such a way where one does not get sued. Editors er on the side of caution or
as said officially, one learns to be “responsible.”
The late Mr. Lee made a name for suing. His immediate
successor used them a less often because by then, most of us knew what was good
for us and editors had become responsible.
It is, however, a slightly less rosy picture for the current
Mr. Lee in as much as the internet and social media has allowed more people to
enter the fray. Even someone as obscure as me can become a publisher. All I did
was to sign up on the blogger platform with my gmail account. Sure, I don’t make
money from blogging but who cares? I’m just a small and insignificant fry.
Online sites, like TRemeritus and the Onlinecitizen have grown, thanks to an army
of volunteers. If the editors of the mainstream were trained to be “responsible”,
the same cannot be said about the team at these websites.
Mr. Lee has threatened to sue and sued bloggers. In some cases,
as in the case of Mr. Alex Au and Yawning Bread, the threat of a law suite was
averted when Mr. Au apologized and took down offending post. However, the
threat of legal action made it such that Mr. Au’s brand became even more prominent
(or as one of my friends often says – it showed he was important enough for him
to be threatened.)
In a sense the internet has shown that the government is at
a loss as to how to deal with people who are not motivated by that most
effective of incentives – money. However, even more worrying for the government
is that the internet has given “dissidents” a means of finding a way where a
crippling law suite is no longer crippling.
First incident came in 2014 when the government took Mr. Roy
Ngerng to court for defemination. Mr. Ngerng, wrote a post, which effectively
accused to Prime Minister of misappropriating the national pension fund. Mr. Ngereng,
who was at that time working for the National Health Care Group as an insignificant
worker was promptly terminated. One would have imagined that a jobless worker
would have capitulated at thought of having to fight a law suit, let alone face
the prospects of the damages the court would have awarded the Prime Minister.
However, Mr. Ngereng took to crowdfunding and as the article from the Straits
Times states, he raised more than his estimated cost:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/blogger-roy-ngerng-sued-by-pm-raises-81000
Copyright – Straits Times
While Mr. Ngereng lost his legal battle and now lives in
Taiwan, the point became clear. There are enough members of the public who were
willing to support Mr. Ngereng when he was facing the prospect of a law suit
from the government. Admittedly, Mr. Ngereng’s accusations were serious and he
didn’t have the means of proving them in court. However, while that may have
been legally true, it became clear that there were enough people who saw this
as the powers that be bullying an ordinary person.
Mr. Leong's case, seven years later, has certain elements which Mr. Ngereng's did not have. Firstly, this is about a post that happened three years ago. Mr. Leong did not write the post, he merely shared it without comment on his Facebook. When he was told to remove it, he did so within three days. Yet, despite his efforts to comply with the letter of the law, Mr. Leong was sued for damaging the Prime Minister's reputation. :
Copyright – Reuters
The message should be clear, the public or at least enough
of the public is willing to support people whom it perceives as being bullied.
The lesson the government will inevitably learn is that it
needs to tighten its grip on the internet. One should not be surprised if laws
on crowdfunding tighten. The argument will be made that this is to protect the
public from unscrupulous people and the definition of “unscrupulous” will made
to include anyone that the government or courts deems so.
This will inevitably be the wrong lesson. The right lesson
would be one that involves acknowledging that the public is losing its fear and
losing tolerance with “bullying” techniques. One has to figure out new ways of doing
things and just as the government has always had the letter of the laws on its
side, the public is also learning to use the laws for itself. The government
needs to get innovative instead of relying on the playbook written for a different era.
No comments
Post a Comment