In her widely discussed letter, Catherine Lim opined that Lee Kuan Yew's use of defamation suits is an out-dated method of silencing critics:
What had worked well in the old era may no longer be relevant today, or worse, may even be damaging. When Mr Lee Kuan Yew liberally used the defamation suit against his critics, one of the reasons he gave (if I remember correctly) was that he wanted to punish them for implying government corruption, and thus eroding the trust of the people, which he said was necessary for the government to do its work. Today, in a twist of supreme irony that would have incensed Mr Lee, Singaporeans see the defamation suit itself, and not the act that has entailed it, as the very cause of the erosion of trust. A few more applications of this once effective instrument of control, even if legally justifiable, would surely damage the PAP cause further, in the highly charged atmosphere of the new Singapore.
Catherine Lim describes Lee Kuan Yew's reasons for resorting to defamation suits into a vindictive act designed to punish critics for implying government corruption.
But the reality is much more complex than Lim's crude reductionism. In an interview with Ludvoic Kennedy of the BBC on 5 March 1977, Lee Kuan Yew explained his rationale for one of these defamation suits:
These men during an election campaign went around saying that I have made through my wife and brother, who are practicing law, $500 per conveyance per flat. And as we have already sold 150,000 flats - public housing, I am therefore worth somewhere between $50 to $70 million.
Kennedy asked Mr Lee: "Wouldn't it be more generous of you, Prime Minister, to have said about these people, if they will withdraw what they said, if they will make an apology, then you will forget about it?
Lee's reply:
That's for the civil side. I have offered that. However, I will not forget about it because I think we must still enter judgement so that they cannot interfere in the next elections. If you get bankrupts turning up and uttering more and reckless falsehoods in the next round, I am in trouble, because some fool one day may light a prairie fire. But when a man - and I've got one, unfortunately - who is a lawyer and therefore must be presumed by the public to be a person who knows the law, says words to the effect which he contests as defamatory, which my lawyers advised me it is defamatory. Well, let the case be argued whether I am corrupt or not. Because if they can make this corruption stigma stick, then I have had it. Then all the good that you have done is wiped off because there is one thing, which a Singaporean expects and has been made to expect: absolute integrity on the part of those in office. We may make mistakes. They will forgive me. But they know that they were honest mistakes, not one where there was a 5 per cent kickback.
The "lawyer" Lee was referring to was none other than one Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam who said, during one 1976 General Election rally:
I am not very good in the management of my own personal fortune, but Mr.Lee Kuan Yew has managed his personal fortune very well.he is the Prime Minister of Singapore. His wife is the senior partner of Lee and Lee, and his brother is the director of several companies, including Tat Lee Bank in Market Street; the bank which was given a permit with alacrity, banking permit license when other banks were having difficulties getting their license...If I became Prime Minister there will be no firm of Jeyaretnam and Company in Singapore because I wouldn't know how to manage my own fortune.
In other words, Jeyaretnam was accusing Lee Kuan Yew of corruption. Lee's response? Take Jeyaretnam to court. "Well, let the case be argued whether I am corrupt or not." Jeyaretnam failed to substantiate his accusations and lost the case.
It has been almost forty years since that interview and in Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against blogger Roy Ngerng, we see history being repeated.
Taking it upon herself to speak for The People, ("Singaporeans see the defamation suit itself, and not the act that has entailed it, as the very cause of the erosion of trust.") Catherine Lim suggests that Lee's method of clearing his name is "no longer relevant" today in 2014. But in this day and age, how is it that resorting to legal means to clear one's name in the face of unsubstantiated accusations has become irrelevant? Should politicians be fair game for defamation just because they happen to be politicians? Are leaders excluded from the right to defend themselves against slander?
In an authoritarian state like Russia or North Korea, a person like Roy wouldn't even be allowed to speak. He would have been brutally silenced. But because Singapore is a democratic country run by laws, its Prime Minister has opted to defend his reputation (this has nothing to do with criticism, mind you) by challenging his opponent to either stop publishing his claim that the PM is lining his pockets from CPF funds or present evidence for his accusations in a court of law. As one blogger points out, Lee Hsien Loong cannot be oblivious to the negative backlash that will be generated in taking legal action:
LHL is not dumb. He knows that filing this defamation suit will trigger a slew of online criticism, but he chose to do it. Because he thinks it is a price worth paying, as a matter of principle – to deter and punish people who ‘try to be funny’.
It has also been pointed out that Lee Hsien Loong's challenge in bringing blogger Roy Ngerng to court would be construed as an act of bullying and even if he wins the battle in the court of law, he would still not prevail in the court of public opinion. But public opinion is diverse (read this,this,this,this,this, and this) and it is simplistic that to assume that "the people" are overwhelmingly in favour of Roy. One suspects that the "bad PR" would have been confined mostly to those who are already predisposed to see whatever the PAP does in a negative light. Of course this doesn't take into account the fact that this is not a case of the PAP persecuting a critic, but a Singaporean citizen (who happens to be doing the job of Prime Minister) suing another Singaporean citizen for making claims that would damage his ability to discharge his duty.
There are those who suggest that instead of legal action, the PM should engage his critics in dialogue. This sounds reasonable. But when one is confronted with a critic who is not above injecting extraordinary claims into the public discourse (and subsequently admitting that these claims are unfounded after they have left their mark on the public consciousness) can dialogue really be a solution? If left unchecked, would dialogue with such opponents not give them a pulpit for more sensationalism?
Should the cinema provide a dialogue forum for those who incite panic by shouting: "Fire!"- when none exists - while a movie is being screened?
In a moral dilemma, one is sometimes compelled to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the predicament is this: Challenge Roy to furnish his evidence (if he had any in the first place) of corruption in a court of law and be seen as a bullying Goliath or to remain silent to avoid provoking the electorate but allow falsehoods to be pervaded, unchallenged. In opting for the former, this PM has demonstrated that he has no intention to be a populist who abandons principle at the first whiff of unpopularity.
Singapura Pundit
*The author blogs at http://singapurapundit.blogspot.sg