- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
Govt won’t sue you if you say it is made up of idiots
In a recent wide-ranging interview with the media, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam touched on the topic of defamation. He explained that, as a rule of thumb, the government doesn’t sue for defamation.
He said, “Individuals within government who are personally defamed can sue – for example when you say someone is corrupt. But if you say the government is made up of idiots no one can sue you because that will be considered an opinion, and you are entitled to that opinion, based on your assessment of government policies. If you say the policies are incompetent, anti-Singaporean, you can’t be sued.”
He noted that people do fiercely criticise government policies especially on social media and that is a right everyone has. “No one can sue you. But if you make a factual allegation like saying a person stole something or has his hands in the till, then you can be sued,” he said.
He also stressed the importance of understanding the impact of existing defamation laws on free speech here — the specifics of which many Singaporeans have for decades not been fully aware of.
“I think you can differentiate between the substance of the law (What is it? Why do we have it?) and the process to make it effective,” he said.
“Should we protect reputation? We protect the right to property. If I steal your property, the Penal Code makes it an offence. If I hurt your body, that’s an offence. If I cheat you, that’s an offence. But if you have worked all your life to build up your reputation and I damage your reputation by saying untruths, why should there not be redress? It’s a logical question. But if indeed you are corrupt, then you ought to be exposed and the defamation law does not prevent that.”
In the past, opposition politicians such as Chee Soon Juan and J B Jeyaratnam were forced into bankruptcy when they were unable to pay damages from being successfully sued by then-government leaders. Even newspapers and magazines like The Economist, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Singapore Herald have also been sued for libel previously.
All these created fear, forcing many Singaporeans, especially the government critics to go online to discuss political matters anonymously for fear of stepping on the “libel landmine”.
Despite these, Mr Shanmugam maintained that defamation laws here allow for a wide berth of comments to be made in the public space — even unreasonable ones — that still fall within the acceptable boundary.
“You can say anything you like about people in public life, whether in government or in position or in the corporate world,” he said. “You can pretty much say anything you like about the way they have handled situations. You can call them incompetent. You can critique and criticise fiercely any policy, and these (policies) have been fiercely debated.”
“Likewise corporate leaders, you know their handling of public companies’ affairs can be debated and you can attack it; they can’t sue you,” he continued. “But if you make a factual allegation which is untrue about them, then they can sue you.”
So, in other words, if one is to make an allegation that someone is corrupt or a liar (i.e, intention to spread falsehood), there has to be evidence to back-up the allegation or otherwise, the aggrieved party has the rights to sue so as to preserves his reputation.
With the increase in number of people going online making comments every seconds, Mr Shanmugam said he had not given much thought to the possibility of modifying existing defamation laws to suit the internet space, which the government is still figuring out how to work within.
“(Right now) the law applies in the same way both in print media as well as internet media online,” he said. “If you can find the person, you can sue.”
When all is said and done, however, if a person can prove what he or she says about an individual, he or she can say it publicly, he said.
“If what you say is true, you just prove it. That’s what in essence the law of defamation is,” he noted. “There are many caveats and qualifications but in essence that’s the nub of it. It is useful to try and keep people honest in their criticisms and to try to make sure that public debate is focused on the real issues, without scurrilous, false allegations.”
In a recent wide-ranging interview with the media, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam touched on the topic of defamation. He explained that, as a rule of thumb, the government doesn’t sue for defamation.
He said, “Individuals within government who are personally defamed can sue – for example when you say someone is corrupt. But if you say the government is made up of idiots no one can sue you because that will be considered an opinion, and you are entitled to that opinion, based on your assessment of government policies. If you say the policies are incompetent, anti-Singaporean, you can’t be sued.”
He noted that people do fiercely criticise government policies especially on social media and that is a right everyone has. “No one can sue you. But if you make a factual allegation like saying a person stole something or has his hands in the till, then you can be sued,” he said.
He also stressed the importance of understanding the impact of existing defamation laws on free speech here — the specifics of which many Singaporeans have for decades not been fully aware of.
“I think you can differentiate between the substance of the law (What is it? Why do we have it?) and the process to make it effective,” he said.
“Should we protect reputation? We protect the right to property. If I steal your property, the Penal Code makes it an offence. If I hurt your body, that’s an offence. If I cheat you, that’s an offence. But if you have worked all your life to build up your reputation and I damage your reputation by saying untruths, why should there not be redress? It’s a logical question. But if indeed you are corrupt, then you ought to be exposed and the defamation law does not prevent that.”
In the past, opposition politicians such as Chee Soon Juan and J B Jeyaratnam were forced into bankruptcy when they were unable to pay damages from being successfully sued by then-government leaders. Even newspapers and magazines like The Economist, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Singapore Herald have also been sued for libel previously.
All these created fear, forcing many Singaporeans, especially the government critics to go online to discuss political matters anonymously for fear of stepping on the “libel landmine”.
Despite these, Mr Shanmugam maintained that defamation laws here allow for a wide berth of comments to be made in the public space — even unreasonable ones — that still fall within the acceptable boundary.
“You can say anything you like about people in public life, whether in government or in position or in the corporate world,” he said. “You can pretty much say anything you like about the way they have handled situations. You can call them incompetent. You can critique and criticise fiercely any policy, and these (policies) have been fiercely debated.”
“Likewise corporate leaders, you know their handling of public companies’ affairs can be debated and you can attack it; they can’t sue you,” he continued. “But if you make a factual allegation which is untrue about them, then they can sue you.”
So, in other words, if one is to make an allegation that someone is corrupt or a liar (i.e, intention to spread falsehood), there has to be evidence to back-up the allegation or otherwise, the aggrieved party has the rights to sue so as to preserves his reputation.
With the increase in number of people going online making comments every seconds, Mr Shanmugam said he had not given much thought to the possibility of modifying existing defamation laws to suit the internet space, which the government is still figuring out how to work within.
“(Right now) the law applies in the same way both in print media as well as internet media online,” he said. “If you can find the person, you can sue.”
When all is said and done, however, if a person can prove what he or she says about an individual, he or she can say it publicly, he said.
“If what you say is true, you just prove it. That’s what in essence the law of defamation is,” he noted. “There are many caveats and qualifications but in essence that’s the nub of it. It is useful to try and keep people honest in their criticisms and to try to make sure that public debate is focused on the real issues, without scurrilous, false allegations.”
